Skip to main content

Full text of "American journal of philology"

See other formats


This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project 

to make the world's books discoverable online. 

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject 

to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books 

are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover. 

Marks, notations and other maiginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the 

publisher to a library and finally to you. 

Usage guidelines 

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the 
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing tliis resource, we liave taken steps to 
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying. 
We also ask that you: 

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for 
personal, non-commercial purposes. 

+ Refrain fivm automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine 
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the 
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help. 

+ Maintain attributionTht GoogXt "watermark" you see on each file is essential for in forming people about this project and helping them find 
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it. 

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just 
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other 
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of 
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner 
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liabili^ can be quite severe. 

About Google Book Search 

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers 
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web 

at |http: //books .google .com/I 

, Google 

, Google 

.y Google 

, Google 

, Google 

, Google 


Journal of Philology 



Pn/HHr >/ Gmi I'm llu yMm Hotkini UnivtriUf 


Nbw Vokk and London: Hacmillan & Co. 

Lkihic: F. a. Brockhaus 


.y Google 


No. 66. 

I.— On the Wettera Text of the Act* u EvidcDced b; Chiyioston. 

Bj FUD. C. Conmbux, 135 

II. — EiUbliihdaeiil uid Extension of the Law of Thnnteyten uid Havet. 


III.— The Cluiktl Element in BrorDing't Poetry. Bjr W. C. Lawton, 197 
IV. — K Phytiol^cal Criliciim of the Liquid uid Nual Sonant Theoiy. 

B7 H. ScHiiiirr-WAKTiiratRG 317 

RKvirm AMD Book Noncu : 334 

Van Cleef '• Index Aotiphonten*.— Pitii't Stori* della poeita peniana. 
— Juiti'i Iianiiche* Namenbuch. 

RsrOBTS: 333 

Revnc de Philolope. — Philoli^ai. 


BOOKI Recbivid, 363 

No. 67. 

I. — Some General Problenu of Ablaut. By Carl Darung Buck. . 367 

II.— The Authonhip of the Dialogns de Oratoribus. B7 R. B. STBXLB. 3S9 

III.— The Dramatic Synchoregia at Athens. By Edward Caffs, . . 319 

IV.— The More Complicated Figures of Comparison in Plato. By 

GiOROR B. HusHY 3ig 

v.— Note* OD the Hiitorical Syntax of Quamvii. By H.' D. Wild, . 347 

Note: 35a 

Ai to Agglutination. By Edwin W. Fay. 

Revirws and Book Noncis: 3j6 

Uiener'i Gflttemamen ; Venucb einer Lebre Ton der religiOien BegriSs- 
bildung. — Leo'* FlauCi Comoediae. Leo's Plautintiche Forschungen 
tnr Kritik ond Geschichle der KomOdie.— Shuckbu^h's C. Suetoni 
Tranquil li Divn* Angnstus. 

Rbpokts: 373 

Archiv fltr lateinische Lexikographie nnd Grammatik. — Hemes, — Ncue 
JahrbQcher fUr PhUologie nnd Paedagogik. 

Bust Mshtion, 390 

RiCRNT Fdbucations, jgi 

Books Ricutsd 396 

^d by Google 


No. 68. 

I. — ContribntioDs to the Inteiptetrntion of the Veda. Bj Maubicb 

BLOOiinBLD, 399 

II.— On the Tut of the Tmculentni of Pliatui. By W. M. Lindsav, 43S 
III. — Bragmann's Law and the Sanskrit V[ddhi. Bf Carl Darling 

Bucx 445 

IV.— Latin Glosses. By Orro B, SCHLUTTBB 473 

Rxvnws and Book Noncxs : 48s 

Delitnch't Asiyrisches HandwOrterbuch. — Thnnib's Handbuch der 
nengriechischen Volksspracbe. — Fitch's De A^onantenim Rediln 
Qnaestiones Selectae. 

Rkports: 497 

Romania. — Gaglische Studien. 

Bkikt MBNnoN, 516 

RiCENT PimucATioNs. sai 

Books Rickived. jaS 

Indix, S3I 

.y Google 

, Google 


Vol. XVII, i. Whole No. 65. 


I have suggested in the Proceedings of the American Philo- 
logical Association for 1894, i.x, tbatoneof the Vedic descriptions 
of the fire-god Agni, viz. Aptm Ndpdt 'water's son,' an epithet 
of the god as lightning, is reflected in Latin Nept-uim (^<.Nepl 
'son' •^*udnos : Sk. tidnds 'of the water') and in Greek Uar-t-imi 
for *N(-*or>(&{m> 'son of the *iSa's'; and I explained *!&■ as equal 
to Sk. i4a 'a sacrificial food oi ghee,' in gradation with Horn. 
tiSiip 'food,' noting that Agni is called in RV. iii 29. 3 Uidyds 
puirdh 'son of I4d' the personified ghee, with 4 for d because of 
the adjective i4ya 'worshipful' (: V*^). a very frequent epithet, 
reserved almost exclusively for AgnL The root was idh 'kindle,' 
with a by-fonn id in the neighborhood of nasals (cf^ Sk. Mu 
'sparkling drops, sparks'). In tViap 'food' (for *itap) [first the 
butter-food of the sacrifice ?]' there has beeo contamination with 
Oi*. It is to this <IBap, perhaps, that we owe the vocalization in the 

' For this memDing of tl6ap I c>d cite no literary iniUiDc«. bal ita r/n- 
inBexion hint* at tu bATiug been once m. liquid. We mnit alio compare T(!v. 
which I take to have meant originalt]' 'piDe<-motint>' (cf. S 3S7), though it 
pancdorer into the lenie of' timber' in general. Possibly °utauv iidiiectlya 
gen. to 'it in tbe sense of ' kindling,' just as ire ose ' pine' in the •onlhem 
part of the U. S. as short for ' kindling-wood,' and a* the Romans used tatJa. 
A comparable sematjr is offered by Sk. gk^ld 'ghee' as compared with Gk. 
Xiprof 'fodder,' bat, specifically, ' straw -yatd." Tbe primary meaning was 
something like that in Sk. Vf^ 'drip, besprinkle' (cf. ilfa-{- fiff 'sprinkle 
SBcriBcial fat'), but in Eng. ilreui is used only of solids. I note, in passing, 
that Germ, itrru probably owes its abnormal vocaliiation lo being one of a 
gronp with iei, tprai (cf. Mod. Lang. Notes, XI 33S). 

.y Google 


commoa {orm nooytUr, but in that case we must put the affection in 
the primitive Greek period, as indeed we should have to put there 
the semasic alienation of lESap (ct supra, footnote i). As the sense 
of the compound was shifting between 'son of the kindlings' and 
' lord of the waters,' the form nmroido* came into use by association 
with oIS/ui 'wave.' These changes must have taken place before 
the composition was felt: thus starting with *N«im iJow'sonof 
the kindlings,' the next stage was *N«rin- *tAxmv, contemporaneous 
with the change from *idap to <I8afi just assumed ; the next step 
*linror *oiOam* 'son of the waves,' with a final shift from 'son' to 
'lord' of the */da's, whence *N«ror- gave way to noT°.' A coin- 
cidental motive may well have been an association ofnaniAuf with 
iltiTaii6i 'river-god' (c£ 'Qk«u>^ <nomfu{c> r 7) and ndrror 'sea.' 

Against the explanation I have offered Corinthian DoniAafuM 
(Cauer, Delectus*, No. 81) may be brought forward. This form 
is not, however, to be received without suspicion. 1 compare the 
two inscriptions (). c, Nos. 6, 7) : 

. .or It aW^t]ic( IIor«(i)Mn /ii»[awi]. 

Of these the first is a perfect hexameter, and the second is not, 
to look at the writing merely, and yet the verses are evidently 
the same. There is undoubted metrical intention in the writing 
of the first We may assume that the Homeric form UovtMmn 
was in the mind of the verse-maker, but whence the Ff It may 
have been due to a ^Ise etymology; but yet J note the form 
&m<^o$or in a list of Trojan names (Cauer*, 78), and we must 
suppose that this is for Homeric Aqi^ojSot, primitive *Aa/i°. See- 
ing that FtKoffa is in the same inscription, we cannot say that the F 

' On the general labjecl of aphaereiii io proper namei I refer to Sannack, 
Rhein. Mn*. XXXVII 477 iq., and to Becfatel't objectiont, B. B. XX 343 iq. 
It leemi to me ■ defect in the latter*! a^ument that he leems to denjr the 
pMtibUit; (hat the fall and ihorteoed fonnt contlnned In conCemporaneoui 
exiitence, a* if, lay, ' Liizie* 01 'Betiie' were to altogether crowd out ' Eliia- 
beth.' Or are we to denjr all eKceptioni to aphaeresis? I add a little li)t of 
EnsUih initancM; AugnMa | Guiiie, Amanda | Handa B Manaa, Elitabeth | 
Liibelh | Liule | Beiiie, Irene | Rena, Henrietta | Rietta | Etta, Selina | Lena, 
Eleanor | Lenore | Nora, Janet | Nettie, Iiabella | Bella { Belle ; Robert, Al- 
bert! Bert; Anita, Jaaniu | Niu ; Eiekiel | Zeke, Abijah | Bijah, Elijah | 
Lije, Matthiai | Thiai (in Atiam BtJe). Man; of the poiieuor* of the abbre- 
viated name* get them in bapti*m, and never bare any right to the long names 
at all. 

.y Google 


in llortAafoM is not Corinthian. Still, the verse-writer may have 
knowa that many Homeric cases of hiatus had (by survival) in his 
own dialect an intervening P, and have inserted one here on general 
principles. Or he may have etymologized on the name from the 
standpoint of A(i/«r* (Cauec', No. 394), a name preserved among 
the Tfaessalians. But the variation may, after all, be a graphic 
one, an attempt to represent the pronunciation of the rounded a 
resulting from contraction of a + «, or anticipative rounding of 
the lips before ■, producing a labial spirant as a passing tone. 
As a graphic device this can be illustrated from the Ionic 
dialects. Thus, for on there are in Ionic dialects two orthog- 
raphies of sporadic occurrence — one is oo and the other oFv (cf. 
Smyth, Greek Dialects, I, §243). In line with this is the repre- 
sentation of a" (or oa) by o/b.' 

But even if the f be original, no great shift needs to he made 
to maintain the sense of my comparison, for Agni is not only 
i^yihputrdh, but is also i4dvdn 'possessing i^d' (RV. iv 2. 5).* 

What seemed to me to be absolutely cedent for the identifica- 
tion of these divinities, taken along with their very considerable 
phonetic agreement, was the connection each has in his respective 
cosmi^ony with the creation of the horse. Their creatorsbip of 
the horse I explained as due to a primitive concision of the stems 
eiw£- 'horse' and aga- 'water'* in the Aryan period, with the 
added semasic interpretation of both stems by 'run,' a namen 
ageiUis to the stem » 'sharp, swift." 

I have since* learned that the same comparison of the Aryan 
words for horse and water had been previously made by Sibree 

'di^tn- ; ySoF 'bnin.' and 10 perhaps ipeciall; liable to aMociation with 
nomJuv. Note alto beloir, p. 19, on ia/iinip (for »iafu iidniii). 

' I not* alio u ai an orthography for av in Ionic (Smyth, 1, c, a44)- 

*I prefer the explanation of 'ulouv at gen. plur. became of the combination 
with *NnroT into one vord. Tbi* would not so nainrally occur with the adj., 
I think. Neither ii ndfit without a modifying genitive ninal, though it 
pouiblj ocean twice, RV. x ij. 3' and ii 35. 14* (cf. the author. 1. c). Objec- 
tion cannot hold that ifdvam ii a -vamt «tem, for -nm and -vami are uted aide 
by lide, e. g. in the Agni-epithett naJAivat- and madkivam: 

*Ot perbapt *aivia. The Celtic treatment ofiu'seeminot tohave differed 
fiom that of p, according to Brugnunn (Gr. I, §43;), and io HDllenhoS't 
objectioni to thii bate from the Celtic lide are not cogent (cf. M. cited by 
Feiit, Got. Etym., t. t. akva). 

'For the lymbol i (in the Aryan period) I refer 1*0 my 'A^lntination and 
AdapUlion.' Am. Jonr. Phil. XV 435. 

* From the Bibliography of I. F. Ant. Ill 66. 

.y Google 


in th« Academy (Nos. loiS, 1052); bis examples are taken, all 
but exclusively, from the names of rivers, and are therefore liable 
to some suspidon, viz. Sk. afvdvail' ('water-possessing') and 
afva/>an}l ('water-winged'); Persian river-names preserved in 
Greek sources, e. g. Hyd-aspes, Zari-aspes, Cho-a^s, etc; for 
Greek, MtXnv-iinrioi' ('litde black water'), Kyta-imnf ('great spring') 
and Euhippa (' fair-water,' Pliny). I believe, however, that I can 
offer more convincing examples than any of these. I cite first 
&x)m a hymn to Vayu, a wind-god, RV. viii 26. 34 : 

tviim hi supsdrastamaih nrtddanefu hUmdhe 
g-rivd^m nifvafir^^ham mafikdnd.* 

Ludwig translates this by "dich den ttberreichen an treffljcher 
nahruDg, rufen zu der menschen sitzen wir, | der wie ein stein 
von rossriickenbreite an reichlichkeit." This is a forced literal 
translation and does not suit the °firi(ia compounds, which are 
of two sorts in RV.: ist, like gkrtdpTi^ha* 'with ghee on its 
back'; 2d, tike !4/(i^riAfi 'smooth-backed': dfvapr^ha om^ixo 
mean 'with dfva on its back.' Grassmann's translation of the 
third p&da is, "Dem steine gleich, der reichlich scharfen soma 
tragt," a rendering based on the conjectural reading ntftipri^ham 
("statt des unpassenden n&fva^, etc."). That the soma-press* is 
meant by gr&vdi^mh nd is, I take it, indubitable, and in dfva- 
pr^ham (for afwf*?') I see the Aryan word for water, i. e. 'run, 
stream'; I therefore translate this pada: 'like a press-stone 
stream-backed right generously,' a translation identical with 
Grassmann's when we observe that soma is connoted by 

' This nmine ii in perfect accord for semasy and form with idratvaH. 

'Cf, theaalhorin Proc. Am, Or. Soc, Dec. 1B94, cliiii. 

'Of this type RV. thows Tifma'. mddhu' and fHffi/-/r^Aa(')oma'', honey* and 
bleising -backed'), in addition to the itiKUncei in the text. 

* I note sdma-px^hisas used ai an epithet of the presa-slones (d^ajas\ at 
RV. »iii 63. J. 

' It is not necesury to regard the feminine as the invariable gender of this 
stem for water, egpeciall]' if the word meant primitively 'no,' ef. Lat. imbrr 
and Grk. i/i^jwf 'rain.' both masc. The fern, gender of aqua ii probably due 
to it) being a woman'* work to procure this {cf. the author. Am. Jour. Phil. 
XV 436, and Mason, Woman's Share in Primitive Culture, p. 35). If we can 
accept Sibtee's interpretation of 'A^'nviTiri? as 'great water,' we might interpret 
the sister spring 'Iinrm icpj^ in the lame sense, i. e. ' water-well.' 

.y Google 


In the a(vaUh&}'\xi^ (JUus religiosa) we have perhaps another 
instance oidfva' 'water.' It is characteristic of the fig genus 'to 
abound in milky juice ' ; it can be inferred that the afvattkd-txtt 
shares in this characteristic when we note that eaoutckou is made 
from its juice (Encyc. Brit.*, s. v. fig). 

Assuming for the present that Indra and Agni as lightning- 
wielders are one and the same, RV. x 73. 10* may be further 
cited for &fvd- ' water ' : 

dfvdd iyayHi ydd vddanty 
djaso jdl&m uld manya enam 
manyir iyaya karmyipt taslhdu 
ydiah prajajAd indro asya veda 

•When they say : "he came from dfva" 
Why so I am minded that he is born oidjas 
From manyti he came ; in our dwellings he hath taken his place. 
Whence Indra was bom (Indra alone) knows that.' 

It is &ir to note that this stanza is of the riddling sort': dfvdd 
iydya is repeated in manydr iydya, and the intermediary term is 
Sjaso jaidm. Ludwig defines manydr by ' eifer,' and djas by 
' Starke.' We may assume that the words were intended to be 
synonymous. Keeping to the ordinary definition of the words, 
the birth of Indra is ascribed to a horse, might, zeal; but I 
propose to render dgvdd by 'water' (cloud), while djoi may be 
here connected with Grk. vypiSi 'moist,' Lat. umor 'water,' with 
-r/-«-inflexion (cf. the author, Proc. Am. Phil, Assoc., 1895, 2. lii), 
to which djas shows the parallel -«j-siem, like Sk. dkas || ahar 
beside dhan- (cf. Noreen, Urgenn. Lautlehre, §53, Anm, i). Nor 

'Popular etjmolosy doabtleu wai at work apon the word ; afvatthd ['hotse- 
»ul1 ' (?), cf. Kahn in K. Z. I 467] U Tor 'OffJ-^Af 'water-EirioE' perhapi.or 
in afva-ttkd -ttkd is a ptc. of ^dhd modelled on -ttd, ptc. of ^da. Kuhn't 
explanation of 'Hka- as for °ttka cannot win belief 10 long ft* we have £e-f(U 
'cow-itall'; there ii besides > clear tradition in RV. (1 13s. 8) that the 
dftu/htJ.tree wa« a aontce of soma (cf. Proc. Am. Or. Soc., Dec. 1694, clxziii) 
— which corresponds preciielj with the interpretation given in the text for 
•ifW-ZTTt^i (cf. KnbD, 1. c. 468). 

' For this and the next itania see alto the author in Proc. Am. Or. Soc.. 1895, 

>0n the Vedic riddle or iraAmaJya, I refer to BloomGeld, Jonr. Am. Or. Soc. 
XV 173 iq-i of Talne as fixing the riddling nature it asya vtda.ct. Bloomfield, 
I.e., 174, footnote. 

.y Google 


is this comparison one of reconstruction entirely, for Yaska, the 
Vedic interpreter and collector of glosses, defines the word in this 
sense. I take this occasion to remark that Yaska deserves to be 
treated with as much respect as a critic as Aristarchus, say, and 
his glosses are at least as valuable for the linguist as those of 
Hesychius. As to Indian glosses in general, the discovery of 
tj stigk in the Maitrayani-Samhita, known before only by the 
tradition of the Dhitupa\ha, but worthy of belief already because 
of vnix't should have taught Occidenul scholars greater rever- 
ence for Hindu tradition. The relation oi Sjas 'water' to 6jas 
'strength' need not concern us now, save so far as we see in 
manytl 'zeal' a repetition of tfj'as 'strength,' by way of double 
entendre on the part of the writer. To the translation of dfvid 
by 'water' the preceding stanza seems to point: 

cakrdih y&d asyapsv A nifalfam 
utd l&d asmdi m&dhv ic caehadydt 
prikityiim diiiHatnydd 6diah 
P4yo g^9v ddadJiS tftadhtfu. 

'When his cakrd has gone down into the dpas (clouds, waters), 
Why then it will seem honey to me (asmdi) : 
What time the udder released o'er the earth 
Hath set milk in the cows and in the herbs.' ' 

This stanza of thanksgiving for rain obviously applies to Indra as 
a rain-bringer, and is appropriately followed by dfvdd 'rziu.' 

In Homer a quite certain case of imn) 'water' seems preserved 
in i 500 : 

St ol 'AffvS66ty ^\6* nap' 'tnc»f wictdair,' 

which I translate: 'who came to him from Abydos, from beside 

*Hj tniailation diffen from bath Grkssmaao'i and Ludwig's, and accaanti 
for the accented ddadhS (which Ludvig would explain as due to its constmc- 
tion with two locativei, as \l It were gilpt <adadks> , ddadAd J^ad^^u). I have 
taken aimdi at a demonitiative of the tit pen., like Lai. htc. Sk. td- (Wh.*, 
49S). Thii doe* not seem to me daring, when we coniider the plural aiem 
oranf-'we' (which, after all, need not be for •g-i-mrf, cf. Lat. w^j). Further, 
(the ad per*.) Ivd- i* a*ed encliticaltr as a 3d pen. demonstrative (Wb.*. 503 i). 
The troth i* that the 'personaP prononn* kre but tpecialired demonstrative* 
(cf. the anthot. Am. Jonr. Phil. XV 4>i-i4)- 

*I note Homer'* epithet of river*, bMcbfwof'iwift-flowing.' 

.y Google 


the swirt waters.' The preposition vopd with the genitive can 
hardly mean anything but 'from beside,' and it seems jejune to 
translate 'from beside bis swift mares,' for Democoon, the person 
in question, is not otherwise described in the Iliad save in this 
passage, and so there is no point in mentioning his horses ; but 
to take the words lo the way I have suggested as a funher 
description of Abydos on the Hellespont gives them a very 
definite appropriateness indeed. 

The stem to which these substantives belong, represented in 
Sk. a(ii, Grk. axw 'swift,' has other forms in which the sense of 
* water ' may be plainly seen : I cite Sk. af tf used as an epithet of 
8oma(e. g. RV. 14.7); and I further explain Grk. 'amnvrfr 'ocean- 
stream, river-god' as the result of a syncretism of two genitives, 
*w(f ot and *Baf^nfr (> *»*.{ii)a»ei), this last with the r/n-inflexion : 
in the phrase Aic 'OmavA 'god of the water' the original genitive 
received interpretation as a nominative. Funher possible Greek 
derivatives of this stem are Ic/mc' moisture' and Ix<*f> 'blood of 
the gods, serum,' with x. <Iuc to the lost gen. *\Kfot {>*lxnt, cf. 
Curtius, G^dzge.^ p. 502, on o>xv). But these last words may 
belong in one group with Sk. n/tte 'sprinkle,' with a loss of the 
initial aspiration in txip- On the other hand, Xwrn has such an 
abnormal aspiration. Can it be that this was borrowed from a 
primitive *lK^f (^sic) 'moisture' standing alongside of *%nn| 

But the initial vowel in the Greek representatives of Latin 
equus, aqua is in any case abnormal. How is it to be accounted 
for t We might refer it to the just-mentioned association with 
*li^F. A further way to account for it would be to set beside 
Aryan *ekw-os 'swift' a stem *iktei- in gradation with £nt.* 
This is possibly retained for us in ^uiXm 'chill, nightmare 
(? night-sweat),' which I take to be akin to Aquilo 'north-wind,' 
L e. ' rain-storm -wind," though, after all, the ^° may be Attic- 

' There ii itill ■ Ifaird TOwel-thftde in Latin acupeJius. I cite from Paul. ex. 
Feit.(p.9. Muller); dicebatar cut praecipuum erat in carrendo acumen pedum. 
N«e funher Oei-fiUr (atti^ ' swift- wing.' On the lelation of the voweU I 
refer to m; ' Agelntination and Adaptation,' Am, Joui. Phil. XV 435. 

*Cf. horrifer Aqnilonii itridoi moHtur nivei (Att. ap. Cic Tutc. I 68); ttri- 
deoi Aquilone procetla (Verg. Aen. I toa) ; hiemi Aqnilonibni atperat nndat 
(ib. Ill aS;). I insgest that Sk. liJaSe 'northward*' developed along the 
Mine line* from auUn 'water.' It it anj way not caay to kc how w^'out, np' 
got thi* meaning; weihould expect a 'left' to balance the 'right' of Jdisi^-. 
I niggett in Ihii connection that in Grk. ^»fM( (Aeol. fltrippof) 'mainland' 

.y Google 


Ionic. However, beside a base *'ekw- there was probably an 
Aiyao doublet l^o^.a phonetic relatimi resting on the assumption 
that Aryan dose / alternated with I (c£ the aothor, Am. Jour. 
PhiL XVI 5 sq., and V. Rozwadowski, B. B. XXI 154)- I am 
about to oflu', I bdieve, a proof that in Sanskrit also we have 
a trace of this vocaliatioa. 

1.— I now approach Agni's epithet Maiarifvan. This term 
had been very early subjected to popular etymology: thus in 
RV. tii 29. 11" we read: tmdlarifvd [sc ueyaW\ ydd dmma t a 
wtiiiiiri | voiasya t&rgo odMavai sdrfnat^, which, translated coa- 
aervativety. means something like 'mdiarifvd, when he was &sb- 
ioned in his mother | became a gust of wind for bowling." But 
po^bly tbe p(^iular etymology went thus: 'When mdiarifvi 
hckd roared' in his mother,' and took (he compound as matdri+ 
icj ('dog'), and thus the epithet would be understood of the 
kowUug stoa:m<winds or roaring thunder attendant upon the binh 
oi' th« li)fhtniQg, Aptm NdpH, io the clouds. This explanation 
is cuiir«ly concordant with the sense of pada d. Bade of the 
popuUr etymolt^y, however, I would see a *mdiar-ifvd-n- (with 
- 1- taken up from dtkarveat, a closely related attribute of Agni — 
W6 btftow, p. «) 'bellowing'Cloud," a description of the thunder 
All«a<.Uut on tightning. If this conception be right, then ifva-n 
htW the aanie vocaliiation as Xirwn 'water.' 

(\i\il uuilli aoil «ftiC i>f Corcjrrm cor' hiox^t) we have a developin«Dt of meaning 
tiu aiiukUi liura to ihAt in Ai/tiiU. This association with Ihe stem aim. 'waler' 
li^tituua th« voju^iAciioD with Genu, u/er (cr. Prellwitz. £(701. Wort., s. *. 

' lhu> t luuilal« iJrimaf}*; cf. Lai. srrmo -talk,' diserim 'talkative': the 
iv.Jt WAi V l^-.naBd.byconUininalioii, j"/r,cr.Sk,jMjr|rtiiia'sounil.' On 
<- t>y ' 4uiivii4liv« rounding' cf. the anthoi, Proc. Atn. Fhil. Auoc., 1S94, i.ix' 

huwvvtfi, ihitl thit tool in ill twelve occntrenccs and si 

' I ui'io KV, i 3*. 8** pJfAii vidytin immOti | vattdm nd miti lifaiti 'the 
litlMuiuc bsllowi like a cow, like a bellowing <inother> (milAf) follows her 
^.lU.' \i is la ba nol«d In paisinE that it was perhaps from mdtdr- ' bellowing 
N. ui.iihoi ■• ' thii the child-word mama \ md passed over into mAidr- ' mother,' 
i^tiuuve Iha a^eiilial suffix in seneral for nouns of relationship. The roaring 
\A kliuuJai iu Ih* vioudi i* fiequentlf expressed as 'bellowing' in the classic 
Uii^'i'HJi. '.siir* ftvtr'afti^ (Atistoph. Nub. 393), ^iorr^t /ii<ai/ia (Aesch. 
Vtuui. U>(ii).4l*> '*<'|KiiiMarni dpm^f (ib. toBs] ; further, Homer describes the 
i,wiiini iaI Ih* liver Suamander by the words /it/iwtor rrirt J-oipoc {♦ S37). «nd 
Wi^il l-Vvu. VI 1}^) use! mtigirt t^um oi the rumbling earth. 

.y Google 


II. — I proceed to indicate a trace of the popular etymology 
assumed above, viz. in the name of the Greek god nav. The 
background was •it/ar 'dog'; the source of the F is 'anticipative 
rounding' (cf. p. 8, footnote i), and the vowel-color corresponds 
with that of Lat. canis (cf. cano 'sing'J. Germ, hakn 'cock' is a 
precisely similar formation, and it is evident that the primary 
meaning was something like 'crier." The animal nature of the 
god Pan is well known.' He is usually associated with the goat 
because of the epithet Alyi-trc!Si;c, interpreted as 'goat-footed,' but 
the meaning may be, after all, ' with flashing foot,' cf. oiyic of the 
flashing shield of Zeus, but also (Aesch. Cho. 592) of a hurricane.' 
Pan was the god of strange noises, and shared with Apollo (infra, 
p. 21) the gift of prophecy : both of these characteristics may be 
traced to a primitive connection with the thunder. Pan was god 
of the shepherds : what is more likely than for shepherds to 
worship 3 divine dog ? Further, Pan is the son of '£pF»taf , whose 
equivalence with the Vedic S&rameya, one of the dogs of the 
underworld, is, I take it, certain (cf. Kuhn, Z. f. D. A. VI 125; 
K. Z. II 314; the author. Class. Rev. VII 61). It is surely an 
easy step to identify Pan, son of Hermes, with a Vedic locudoo 
like (vli Sirameyah. I find a strong proof of the canine nature 
of the god Pan in his epithet of Ai^Mior, which I refer once more 
to Xviait 'wolf: no other etymology will account for the Latin 
name of Pan, Lupercus. 

' In Greek alio the same trord was applied to singing birds, vii. in ai-mim, 
the bird whose tong was a}. — that is to say, who trilled t's (?). Id Lnt. aUfda 
we are to see a primitWe 'al-ceti, like et-itn, affected by the -liBM \ -dn suffix of 
Mnmda to alelde, with the previous vowel long as in luilda and other words of 
it* type where a rhythmic lengthening arose comparable. I suggest, with that 
in GrlcTO^^iporifrom an aversion to foar successive shorts — what is known as 
E>e Sanunre's 'Loi Rythmique'; compare eiifldinit,\iai cufilJui, tod p) //uil. 
iimtu {i.e. /atllimui). hat /acllii. There seems no donbt of the genuineness 
ofaktib (cf. alio Cuitiui, Grundzg.', 133) ; but see Noreen, 1. c, p. tSo. 

'In this connection I call attention to the word waiiSTip, «hich I interpret as 
the 'roaring animal' irivSiip. The young panther is specially noted, like the 
puppy, for its whine. I note also from Tenny«on't Oenone: "in the dark 
mom The panther's roar came muffled." It is possible that n-dv and % 
were first inflected at two words; then if ■rrai'- 'roarer' were confused with 
the nentei irav'all'in its inflexion, and so became ^nstr-, we could account 
by this iMociation for the participial inflexion of Uuf, the roarer by pre- 
eminence, as due to analogy with this *iravr.. At any rate, O^p is specially 
associated with the lion in Homer {cf. L. and Sc, s. v. S^p), while Earipides 
(Here. Far. 465) uses Aipdf . . . iio^et, 

'See below, p. 35, for the further etymolc^ of oij-ic- 

^d by Google 


Perhaps it was from the compound meiar-ifvan, misinterpreted 
as mdlari-fvan, that the dog' g:ot into the circle of the original 
nature-deities, though, to be sure, this compound cannot be 
demonstrated for the Aryan period.' 

111. — Another of Agni's epithets in the Veda is i&nu-ndpdl, 
which has the traditional interpretation of 'self-son,' a recognition 
that fire is the seed of fire, and perhaps this etymolc^ is not too 
recherehi to allow even to a primitive people. I venture, how- 
ever, to suggest in its place a less metaphysical one. Exception 
can also be taken to the prevailing explanation from the stand* 
point of the accent of the compound : i&na-n&pdl, but tanlt 
'body, 8el£' We may not assume a regular accentual change 
from ian^ndpdl because of mitrtiv&ru^. Now, the double 
accent implies a dvandva compound. I compare _/it^^aA''&mily 
and master ' with yfc/aft' ' lord of the family.' I therefore inter- 
pret Idne ndpdt as idna and n&pdt — that is to say, 'thunder atnl 
lightning.' In tdnu" we have the 'dual' form of dvandvas,' lost, 
however, in "ndpal (for °napdldu) because the entire compound 
is an epithet of the singular Agni (_ApAm NdpeU). 

In general semasic support of this proposition I note that 
Jupiter, the lightning-wielder, had among the Romans the epithet 
of Tonans 'the thunderer.' The primitive Aryan root was far || 
tan 'thunder.' The Scandtnaviao divinity Thor warrants the r- 
form,' while in O.H.G. Donar we have a syncretic form. In 
Latin lonilru we have both the r- and n-forms in reduplication. 
It may be urged against this conception of tdnn" that there is no 
Sanskrit *idnii- in simplex : true, but there is no Sanskrit *tanar 
either. We might infer, however, a simple «-stem from the stems 
TANayi-TN-i/, tanyaiiS (for *ianyairiS'i), ianyit; we have besides 
ioniiru in Latin a iffHta 'thunder,' and this we must suppose is an 
original word, and not identical with the loan-word riJMit 'tone*; 
and, in fact, this seems almost implied in the passage that is our 
authority for this word: antiqui autem toniirum dixenint aut 
ttmum (Senec. Q. N. II 56). 1 note further from RV. the word 

'For the IndiTanic doe* in mytbolosy, one of which trai, in all ptobabilitf, 
identical wilh Greek Ktp^tpoc, I refer to Kaegi's Rig-Veda, note* 874, 374* ; 
thete di^* of Ihe andenrorld are also known in Roman, Celtic and Gennanic 
mytholoE^ (cf. e. g. .Ladewig OD Verg. Aen. VI 357). 

'But the two pftTt* of the compound ate to be found in Ihe legend of 
Demeter Erinnjrs (infra, p. 19]. 

*On theie compounds cf. the author in Am. Jour. Phil. XV 430. 

• On thii interchange of r/n in rooti, cf. the author, Am. Jour. Phil. XVI 33. 

.y Google 


tldmil ' roaring, thundering,' which may be compared with Grk. 
ariiia 'mouth' (with n-inflexion), <rrmitv-\oi 'chattering.* The root 
was s>tam, to which our root s>tax' was doubtlesa a by-form. 
In view of all the -u-stema given, we can hardly go amiss in the 
reconstruction of a Sanskrit *i>6Ai« 'thunder,' warranted by the 
duaUc compound idntmdfidi ' thunder and lightning.* 

IV, — A third epithet of Agnt is n&rdfdAsa, which Grassmann 
interprets hesitatingly as "der Manner Lob." I note that this 
compound, like tdntindpdl, has two accents and a dualized first 
term; I would therefore interpret it as 'ndra and fdiua.' To 
this interpretation the Veda itself leads us, for in RV. x 64. 3 we 
have the two terms separated, ndrd vd fdAsam. This compound, 
though used pre-eminently of Agni, is also used of PSian, These 
divinities agree as dispensers of light; further, Agn! is the seer 
(iavt) kbt' /^oxir and Pflsan is a divine guide on earth and, like 
Hermes, to the place of the dead (^x°*">f^'^) '• ^^ ™^y therefore 
regard them as variant personificatiooB of the same divinity.' It 
is fiirther to be noted that f6Asa is the name of a divinity asso- 
ciated with Bhdga, and this latter is of frequent association with 
Pa^n. There is no reason for us to separate ^ii'hsa from ij fafu, 
which Grassmamn defines by 'feierlich aussagen'; I therefore 
propose for our epithet the rendering ' prophet.' 

Let us turn now to the first half of the compound ndrd^ : Agni 
enjoys with Indra, for both are the lightning, the epithets nf-i'ama 
'manliest' and n^-t-tt 'dancing,' epithets ultimately akin to VT II 
ttr-t- 'dance <the war-dance>' and «f'warrior' (c£ the author, 
Proc. Am, Phil. Assoc,, 1894, vii). With these I would connect 
ndrd' and define by 'leaping,' a characterization of the lightning, 
as foAsa- 'prophesying' is a characterization of the thunder; the 
compound ndrdfdAsa is thus resolved into 'lightning and thunder,' 
or, more simply, 'leaping and roaring.' 

In support of this explanation of ndrd" I bring forward the 
Greek god-name Nqp«w. This divinity, the son of n&yrot ' the 
deep,' spoke sooth and recked of justice (Hes. Theog. 335 sq.), 
qualities that clui% to him perhaps from his associate ^oAsa ' the 
prophetic voice of the thunder.' The part lightning plays with 

'Sk. ^taH\itani I Dote the additional w-tlen ttandlku. lo Greek we teem 
to haxe the -r-form of the root in orepoirj and oor/jomf.'the latter with the 
weakett grade of the prepoiition iv ai its prefix; cf, Lai. intattan. 

'According lo Henty (on AV. vii 9), PilHn Ji unqaeiiionnbly a (olat {od, 
the wandeting ran. 

.y Google 


primitive people aa a manifestation of the divine will is too well 
known to require discussion. From the standpoint of the form 
the agential ending 'tur, so common in proper names, has affected 
in Greek the god-name *Af»)i to 'Apcvi. The ^ of Nijp«vi is not a 
representative of the Sk. d, but has been lengthened by de Saus- 
sure's 'loi rythmique' to suit the exigencies of the hexameter 
verse: this lengthening doubtless took place first in the masc. 
patronymic *Nijpa;dat along, say, with NijX<i3aD {* 652), and in 
Hesiod we have, in fact, as a v. I. (Vatic. 1409 in maig'.) the fern, 
patronymic NqptSttt for Homer's NqpqfStr. 

Ttijptvt is palpably hut another name for npurtit, the other old 
man of the sea, who also speaks sooth (S 384 sq.). The Romans 
have a corresponding deity in Porlanus (with suffix like that of 
Neptunus), interpreted by popular etymology as the 'harbor- 
god.' The Aryan base of both words is *pf'to, Grk. irpAror 'first.' 
In the Rig- Veda, too, the t^iihel praikama-j&^ 'first-born* shows 
traces of association with Agni {ApAm ndpaty 

We ask ourselves now why the term 'first' came to be applied 
to the god of lightning. The answer to this question is furnished 
by the god Triid Apiyd (^<*npl-ya-), a descendant of Ap&m 
ndpdl. With this parentage Trita invites identification with 
Tpiruv, son of Poseidon. The story of how Triton aided the 
gods in the battle with the giants by blowing on his conch is 
comparable with the services rendered by Trita to Indra in battle 
(cf. e. g. RV. X 8. 8), and with his service in blowing up the fire 
(Agni) like a blacksmith (RV. v 9. 5). This suggests that Trita 
is the thunder, and we may therefore see in Tpir»» an intensive 
form firom ^ tan with reduplication in reversed order to that of 
\.aX.lonilru'. an example of this variation is furnished by Grk. lop- 
(»or)(Lat can-cer 'crab.' The Aryan form *tf-ion- was confused 

'Cf. tuTlher /wnfAiHi of Aeni, which means 'scl-before'; thi» sente U also 
inherent in Agni: 4/11/ 'lead' (infra, p. 34). I call alien I ion to RV. i i, i Agnlat 
i(e purikUam 'Agni I worship, the ttader.' etc. 

'Th« epithet is nted twice of Agni (x 5. 7: 6t, 19); once of the ifai devti 
(x log. i); once of Brhaspati (i.e. Agni?) as the ihunderet and tender of 
lightning (vi 73. i) ; once of Viyu (= Apim sdkhS) as the bringer of rain (x 
16S. 3) ; once in a riddling hymn (i 164. 37), where the application to Agni il 
probable; once of Brahman (iii ag, 15); and twice, in one phrate, of the 
dragon whom Indra slew for holding back the waters (i 31. 3-4). It it thus 
shown that the word never went f&r beyond its application to Agni as Apim 

.y Google 


in the primitive period with *M'-/0-' 'third.' The result of this 
confusion* was a series of numeral divinities that crop out here 
and there in the derived languages. Thus we have in the Vedas 
a DvUd 'second' to balance Tritd 'third,' and Agni was, as w« 
have seen above, prathamajtl 'first-born.' In the old Norse 
mythology Odhin bears the epithets of Tkridki 'third' and 
Tveggi 'second.' In Greek, in addition to Tpfruv 'third,' we 
have npM-<ut 'first,' while in Latin we have Porhmus 'first.' 
Possibly we have in Latin Dis, a name of Hades, an original 
'second'; DvUd is in the Rig-Veda (v 18. 2) an epithet of Agni, 
who, like Hades, is lord of all wealth.' It is perhaps more than 
a coincidence, that 'Atdijc ('Aiaijc by popular etymology) is called 
rfiirant by Homer (o 188), and is inferentially uparot in Hesiod 
(Tbeog. 455). *Ai^t (without the 'pietistic'* rough breatbii^) 
may be etymolc^caUy connected with Lat. aedes 'sacred fire' 
(: i/indh \\ ind) and with Sk. i4a (cf. supra, p. i). 

From tptrmf we are able to fix the character of Pallas Athene, 
who has the epithets tpt-TO'yititta* and 'K-rpu-rifif. On the latter 
epithet the etymological talent of the Greeks has been at work, 
either popularly or in the person of the Homeric diaskeuasts. I 
would see in this epithet a composition of the preposition *^ (the 
weakest form of iV, cf. Sk. a) and V '01 ^3 in Latin intonare ' to 
thunder'; the change from 1 (cf Tpir»») to I (i. e. if) is not 

' The Arran r-TOwel w«» doubtless about what we have in Ihe first ayllable 
of oui Eagliih 'pr/tty.' The Sk. roots io -f make passive in .ri;t.g.inriy4tt: 
VjwT, which is, I take it, orthographic for 'mryate. The I of Tpfjw is like I 
in the Sk. iDteniive stem var-l-vrl-, while ( in Lat. tm-i-lm is like the / in Sk. 

' Macdonnell takes the nnmetal Hterallp in his Mptholocical Studies {J. R. 
A. S., July, 1893, 419 sq.), so far as I iiiii able to infer from the citation in I. F. 
Ant. Ill, p. 334 : " We thus find that the cumnlative evidence of (he Rie-Veda, 
of comparative mythology, and of the Aveita combine to prove that Trita in his 
otiginal nature was the third or lightning foTm of fire. This was his character 
in the Indo- Iranian period . . . possibility of Trita having been the name of 
lightning even in the Indo-European period . . . Odhin bears in the old 
Norse mythol^TtheepithetThridhi,the third— as well as Tveggi, the second." 

'We should expect, of course, til- in Latin (<,dvil-), but there Is doubtless 
association with the stem dlvil-\dU- 'rich.' Note, however, the ptepositioo 
^' apart' (Lindsay, tat. Lang., p. 583). 

*Cf. infra, p. 34. 

'One of the myths makes Athena the daughter of Poseidon and Tritonia, 
and from this connection with Poseidon her relation to the Rre-divinlty ia 
rendered more probable. 

.y Google 


difficult phonetically, and took its start perhaps from A-r/nVof 
'indefatigable.' The brandished spear of iiaAXiir (cf. koXXm 'bran- 
dish' and Arist. Av. 1714 iniUai' Ktpamir 'brandishing a thunder- 
bolt') was a figure to describe her as the ligbtning-wielder. 
Latin Minerva has perhaps a similar semasy and may be com- 
pared with mindri ' to threaten.' In *Atfa*a I see a Greek epithet 
of Pallas meaning 'immortal' and related to dAuonM.' 

I have explained (in Proc. Am. Phil. Assoc, 1894, i. vii} Indra 
as a cognate of Ares and Mars' (for *//ars}, all deriving from 
i^nr-t- 'leap.' Indra is therefore to be connected with ndra". 
Greek and Roman mythology have given to Zeus and Jupiter the 
control of the lightning, and so Ares and Mars seem rather pale 
in this respect as compared with Indra; but, besides general 
considerations (cf. Buchholz, Horn. Realien, III 150), the epithets 
Sffpiliot 'mighty' {Sfifipot 'rain,' cf. Grassmann, K. Z. XII 91)* and 
'EumXtoti 'the rainer' (iy+vtt 'rain on' ?) testify perhaps to the 
original state of tbii^. 

One might expect on a-firi»ri grounds a connection between 
Indra and Agni (Apdm NdpHf). I note as a general consider- 
ation that in the hymns to the so-called dual-divinities, those to 
Indr^nl are commonest,* and I call especial attention to the fact 
that Indra and Agni are in one place (RV. i lOg. 4) called 
A{vins*: these last I shall presently discuss- 
But I return to the compound l^&rd-fdnsa to seek for etymo- 
logical kin of the last member, turning first to the Italic field. 
One of the earliest Roman traditions was that of the Rape of 
the Sabines : this event took place at a feast to Nepttmus Equester 

* For the etymology of oBivaret cf. the Rathor, Proc. Am. FbiL Atsoc, 1S94, 
I. iz, footnote S. 

*Cf. further the ulhor, 1. c., 189;, Ixriii. 

' I cannot ifree with the comparUon of Sk. agrimdi (Piellwiti, ■. v. h^piiof) 
■vonnstehend': thii cumot be tepanted from yd/'diiie,'d}u. I note that 
the poled-ont meaning of 'pawetfal' in ippifiot betide biippoc 'ntin ' is paral- 
leled in djv 'power' and 'rain* (lupra, p, s) and in Sk. tignl- 'powerful' 
be*ide irfp^ ' molit.' 

*The itatittic* are: Indra and Agni, 11 ; Indra and Varuna, 7; Indra and 
Soma, 3 ; Indra and PQiau, I ; Indra and Vijna; 1 ; Soma ftnd Rodra, 1 ; Soma 
and PQ^an. I ; and Agni and the Mamt), t. It li noteworthy that in all the 
hymni bnt three, Indra ii the Gnt member of the compound, and thii would 
imply that the term had an original adjecliTe value (cf. the author on Mitra 
and Vampa, Am. Jonr. Phil. XV 430, footnote 3). 

*The honemen ; cf. on Agni'i relation to the horse, p. 3, and on Indra't 

.y Google 


called the Comualia (Liv. I 9): we get from other sources the 
name Ctmsta for the god of this festival. There can be no objec- 
tioD, from the phonetic point of view, to equating Consits directly 
with the Vedic <pdfuas and with the latter half of Ndrd-fdnsas, 
and I again note that Ap&m nAfat = NEPr-uniu is a perfect 
semasic equation,' and a perfect phonetic one so far as Ndpdi is 

But we have this epithet in Greek also, in the name of one of 
the Dioskouroi, Ka^rap (<*«^-ntf>-). It needs no argumentation 
to prove a legendary and fiinctional similarity between the Dios- 
kouroi and the Afvins (cCe. g. Kaegi's Rig- Veda, n. 171, and 
the literature there cited); it only remains to get at the verbal 
coDoection: Kiimap is an agential noun to ^ians 'proclaim,' used 
of the prophetic voice of the thunder. The character of the 
Dioskouroi as horsemen is as well established as that of the 
Afvins, and if the relation of *ehtie- 'horse' to *aga- 'water' be 
established, we are prepared to see in these horsemen 'doudmen, 
storm-clouds,' the attendants of Apim Ndpdt, the lightning. In 
K4i«T«p, therefore, the tamer of horses (clouds), we see the thunder, 
and in noXvdfvin^t, who was &med as a boxer, the lightning-stroke. 
As to the separate names of the Afoini. the Veda does not inform 
us,' and no reliance can be placed in Qftunaka's statement (Brhad- 
devaiai. vi 33) that they were called Nasatyas and Dasras, for he 
merely adapts two epithets of the A^vin-pair from Rig-Veda. 
Similarly the Greek noXvAnnif very nearly reflects an epithet of 
the Afvins, viz. puru-ddAsas-, which has been compared with 
*Avi^ ' wakifioukot. The earliest authority for voXvd^c is the 
Hesychian gloss iroXvt^ma ' ■■oX^^oi'Xoi'. We may, however, com- 
pare noKutfigrtr with Puruddfisas-, after the following fashion: 
"dalisas- may be for *daAfas-, with an assimilation of spirants 
which is almost the rule in Sanskrit (cC Wackemagel, Altind. 
Gram., §197). Now, if we operate with *daAf-as- this would 
correspond to *i»yK-if in Greek. Can jk (i. e. wk") give tuc ? 
J. Schmidt (Vocalismus, 1 181) distinctly maintains that the group 
vowel -I- nasal + cons, results in a vdiphthong, say ank gives auk 
(reported hy Bezzenherger, B. B. IV 350). In favor of this 
phonetic treatment is o^xv' 'throat,* Aeolic J/i^, which belongs 
with Syxu 'choke,' c£ O.Pruss. w-insus 'throat,' Goth, kalt-agga. 

'Objectian will not bold on Mconot of ihe order, for at RV. ii 35. ti we 
lu*e ndptnr afAm. 
' Unleu indeed they it Indrk utd Agni ; cf. above, p. 14, and footnote 5. 

.y Google 

A.irtKv^ ^XAmr^it » ifaa*** VXmar »xdl J^Ufnai^* wjh S 

•'a*', ■t'^.xt' wwi ,n O.-'rwa. i-^t-ai 

''!•*', ^* Gr-wk p«">,«i aggaia ihe '■j-^'-t a ail dcsgs tc 
%f-tr.t- ( ai>re «^ '«)r' : Lac mwr-u. s-^n« ' bird _<*«fL-»M?^ : 
(,-itf. irvHu H<*r« -here has b<«u ether in Grsdc cr ai Larn, a 
''>'>T'.f:i<«''.(i f/ «• w^.i'a ou. Such a eccr^ca I aapcoae to bave 
ttk«ii ^M/x in £FH4i# fc^ *|«4i«. It f"^? CO me dot the tesC- 
jwiny </ 4«/-v aiul $w^ caasi:^ b« £u-iT njecced. and so *-4>7«- 
may have ((iveo -*.»«-, x *-^tr^ Gredc duileo xt leas. Grannng 
fr,,*, •« c*n aacr;!-^ '*««-»»- ixni Sk. =iiK«JTM- m a base 'demk-es. 

Om •'■/T'l iKuds to be taid crjccen::cg Sk, 'dax(-mt- : it will 
M/<ng£ •■•b th^ verb-«em da^^iy- 'hii^eidi seii:.' Thos. at 

fcV, vJii V 2.) =t ■" t^idofthe A^-dca : jittdm k^Azdy* (Afsmd 

uHf dttfatyalhalf 'ye two alvajra iesiffx heip on Kinra'; 
wh\\K fntruddntat- i* defined by Bohtllogk 'rcicb an wnnderbaren 

Th« exfflanatibn of Xa^«pa9 the prophetic voice of the tbnoder 
I'-aftt u* O interpret KMraAM ai the 'spring of the prophetic 
tnnnf.*.' Here we can compare LaL Casmena\.c,tmata 'muse' 

FffMibly we have the entire compound Ndrdf&lisa in Greek, 
((lit with it* membcri in reversed order, in the name of KovviMpi), 
thfl prophrtic daughter of Upiaiun l<*firiyipnu>s ^ hat. firitmu 
'firm' (t), cf. Rupra on nprnriCi]. We can but regard this as 
tinother form of Kavrt^Mipa, the name of one of the wives of Priam. 
In Katit' I see a development out of *'(^(rr>'-, while '^attpij \\ 'ampa 
in ■ fnmlnlne doublet to ii^p (supra, p. ). To justify this notion 
from the lamasic point of view, it is essential to note that Cassandra 
whn h twin with Hclenua. Juat ao the Dioskouroi were of one 
hlnh wldi }fe1ena. Are these names also to be explained as 
rpllhrtt, orlfcinnlly it leaat, of the fire-divinity? 

V. 'KX/fi), *KX>»or. — By way of reinforcement to the suggestion 
juat made, I note that M^i ia cited by Hesychius in the sense of 
' t<)rrli.' a apii« that may be reconciled with the literary value of 
'Imakct' by considerlns that both are made of splinters of wood. 
If we hnve here in original light-divinity, then there must be 

.y Google 


conaection with Lat. sol 'sun' and O.H.G. sun-na (with inter- 
change of r, (/) and «; cf. Noreen, Urgerm. Lautlehre, §53, i, 
and the author, Am. Jour. Phil. XV 432).' In Sanskrit the form 
is svdr, where the v is, I take it, parasitic (supra, p. 9), and the 
primitive stem may be written Sar || I'an and, by contamination, 
j*ar. With the stem in this condition, the relation of XrX^i^ 
' moon ' becomes dear : the relation of 'E\i>fri to SfX^wj is just that 
of Br to cvt. We have in Sk. svdratfa- 'shining' the precise 

But 'BXtn; as sister to the Dioskouroi suggests a more definite 
mythological connection. Spite of differences in the suffix,* she 
seems identical in many important mythic points with Sara^-ji^, 
mother of the A(vins. This mysterious divinity is known to us 
by a pair of isolated stanzas in RV. (x 17. 1-2), which seems to 
be of the nature of a riddle (brahmodya, cf. Bloomfield, Jour. 
Am. Or. Soc. XV 172 sq.). These run [in Bloomfield's transla- 
tioa (1. c, 173)]: "Tvas^ is instituting a marriage-pageant for 
bis daughter : at this news <a]l the people of> this earth come 
together. Yama's mother, while being married, the wife of 
mighty Vivasvant, disappeared. They hid away the immortal 
woman from the mortals ; making a sdvarr^A (a tike one, double 
fntendre ; one like Saranya in appearance, and like Vivasvant in 
character, or caste), they gave her to Vivasvant. Moreover, when 
that bad taken place, she bore (? carried) the two A9vinB ; she 
abandoned, you know, two pairs— Saranya." As additional 
detail to this (which Lanman, Notes to Reader, p, 381, pro- 
nounces "a braw story, but unco short") Yaska tells us (Lan- 
raan's translation, I.e.): "Tvastar's daughter, Saranya, bore twins 
(Yama and Yaml) to Vivasvant. She foisted upon him another 
female of the same appearance (jdvar^m), and, taking on the 
form of a mare, fled forth. Vivasvant took on the form of a 
horse, followed her, and coupled with her. From that were born 
the two A9vins or 'Horse-men.'" Of the savarnd was born 
Manu, Now, in the myth of Helen almost every single one of 
these incidents has a correspondence, ist, Tyndareus made a 
marriage for bis daughter and to this all the princes of Greece 

'FoT the relation of the twoiigniGcationsof ii(«ir|jawR 'shine' and 'tound,' 
cf. Bloomfield, I. F. IV 76, footnote, and the author. Am. Jonr. Phil. XVI 25. 

'Thit Mffix difference ii preciielj' comparable with inaHi\manyti'-<nr»X\t,' 
fftamd Xfrtat^ 'enemy,' lurdi^a \ luraifytl 'hastening,' etc. See also the neit 

.y Google 


came; 2d, both the women eloped; 3d, in one of the Helen 
stories, not the true Helen, but 'one just like her,' fulfilled the 
elopement with Paris, while the true Helen was detained in 
Egypt by none other than King Proteus I 4tb, Helen was not 
captured till her husband, among others, got into Troy by means 
of a wooden horse which he had been directed to make by 
Helenus — a detail for which we can now gain a sensible explana- 
tion for the first time ; 5th, both women are associated with the 
Dioskourois A;vins, Helen as twin-sister (quartuplets, in two 
pairs) and Saranyfl as mother ; 6th, there is a further story that 
Paris deceived Helen by taking the precise form of Menelaus. I 
submit that these correspondences are enough to establish the 
identity of the two tales. 

There are also more etymological correspondences than that 
between Sarat^'y^ and 'eX«Vi|. In Tva^ar I see an agential noun 
to tj s>tar^t'vM{^t'ar),A primitive •(i>)/iMi-j-^ar 'thunderer,' 
while back of TurAdptor I posit a *t^m-lr; whence ^tund-r-. In 
'Epfi-tijn), the name of Helen's daughter, we have perhaps, in its 
last part, Yami {•urti<.**yamya), and the first part of HtM-Xaoc is 
possibly akin to Manu ; but on these points I do not insist For 
the possible equivalence of iiciXv>(iiiEi]i and purudahsas see above, 
p. 15. 

As to the suffix, 'EXt'n; would correspond to a 5k. "Sara^, 
which might have a by-form ^Saratfl. In the sole Vedic form 
Sarai^yil-s we may have "Saraifl affected by vadh&s^ 'bride' 
(note that vahaiilm ' wedding ' occurs in the passage) ; but on the 
relation of the -a and -jiil-aaSixts see last page, footnote 2. 

The only obstacle to this comparison from the mythological stand- 
point lies in the Greek goddesses, the Erinyes. Kuhn (K. Z. 1 439) 
compared 'Epim with Sara^yA. The phonetic objections to his 
comparison are not, in my opinion, insuperable, viz. the loss of 
the rough breathing, and the abnormal vocal color of i. For the 

> In RV. -d is ■ not infrequent suffix for the nainei of goddesses and women. 
I note XYiadafi 'a demon,' Gungii 'a goddeia' (named along with Sdranvtl, 
and probably > variant form of Gdngd), agrb • maiden,' (vafti- • mother-in-law,' 
Other -A-stemi show a connection with words for 'water': catn-6 'drinking- 
vessel,' kadr-& 'brown soma-Yetsel,' mcAaln-i 'ri»er,' naihan-A 'spring,' (he 
two first being probably affected by /«Ali 'ladle' and the two lixihj CiAgi. 
The Greek divinities in -t (infra in the lexl) are sea- divinities, and Saren.y6 
is, by the terms of the supposition, a relative of AfAm ndpsi; furthermore, 
SaranyA as * mare ' would possibly be affected by ifi ' swift, horse.' 

, Google 


Erinyes in their character as avenging deities there is no mythical 
connection worth mentioning. Kuhn, however, reports from 
Pausaniaa (VIII 25) a story of Demeter Erinnys, to whom there 
was a temple at Thelpusa in Arcadia: 'While in search of her 
daughter Poseidon was following her to enjoy her, and she turned 
herself into a mare; Poseidon thereupon became a horse and 
coupled with her; at first she was angry, but afterwards cooled 
off by bathii^ in a river, and hence she received the name 
Erinys, because ipaitur means among the Arcadians "to be 
angry." Thereupon she bore a daughter and the horse Areion, 
whence Poseidon received his epithet of Hippios.' Later (ch. 
42) Pausanias tells us that, according to another tradition, 'she 
had borne no horse, but a daughter known aa Despoina ; in her 
anger at Poseidon and grief for the loss of Persephone she put on 
mourning and concealed herself for a long time in a hole ; drouth 
and famine resulted, and Zeus finally had to send and beseech 
Demeter to return among the gods; the hole where the goddess 
bid was consecrated, and a statue of her with a horse's head set 
up there.' 

Now, as to the epithet 'EpzrCt, we have no right to reject the 
derivation of Pausanias; and I would therefore stick by the 
connection with Ipu 'strife,' for this suits the character of the 
Erinyes perfectly. The ending -rCi is capable of having orig- 
inated on Greek soil. I note 'Bri^w 'goddess of war' and '£»$• 
akutt 'god of war': 'Epavi-t is perhaps in special relation with this 
pair, and meant 'begetter of strife' (<fpu>+i!-«, Sk. ^sH- 'bring 
forth'); but, in any case, there is ample warrant in Greek, as in 
the Veda (supra, p. 18, footnote), for god-names in -v-r, e. g. 

i ^pDit and q Tt)6it. 

VI. Demeier. — But, even though we explain away the epithet 
't-pmit of Demeter, there siill remain points of similarity between 
the myth cited and the Sara^yo-story. To the explanation of 
this resemblance I now address myselC If we regard this epithet 
'^pariit as sufficiently accounted for by its relation to ipivvtit 'be 
angry,' we can find in the name of AtfiJinjp a special reason for the 
legend. I infer from the short name aijio that "/irinjp is but an 
epithet, and from aandr^p we can perhaps infer to *Aaf^v (cf 
Thess. &afmr, Cauer, Delectus', No. 394) : i^dav 'bum.' Thus 
we can account for the Aeolic form ^mpar^p (with a short form 
Am, according to thfe MS reading of Hymn. Hom. V 123) by 
assuming a contraction from *Aaf «-, as we have the right to do 

.y Google 


in Aeolic where / followed a long vowen* If we conceive this 
goddess as a fire-divinity' also, tBeo in "fonip we can see a pait 
of the epithet MdUtr-ifDon (sopra, p. 8), while the story that 
she turned to a mare may have been soggested by the last part 
of the compound ^-ifvan (nom. '*ifvd = Grk. Tim) 'mare') b^ore 
its loss in Greek. Her pursuer was Poseidon (_Ap&tn Ndpaf), 
another form of the fire-divinity. The conception of Demeter 
shows traces of a connection with fire in her attribute of a torch, 
for she was said to have lighted torches to go in search of her 
lost daughter Persephone. Some special correspondences may 
be made out between the Agni myths and the Demeter myths. 
The goddess in her wrath withdrew from earth, and &mine came 
upon it, until Zeus finally sent Hermes to propitiate her. So 
likewise Agni withdrew from (he gods and bid, and bad to be 
won over to return by Vanina, for, as the sacrificer, his absence 
was causing distress to the gods (cf. RV. x 51). Demeter's 
function as goddess of civilization reminds, further, of the legend 
of Agni Vai9vanari (gat. Brah. i 4, I, IO-18). 

Popular etymology had, however, been at work on the name, 
and A^-fi^r^p was felt as r$ lajrtip : the latter divinity was a special 
antithesis for Ztvr mrnjp, Mother- Earth) (Father-Sky. It is natural 
to believe that &iitlrnip is thoroughly mixed in her attributes with 
Tt) m^p. Of course, when "(unTjp 'roaring' was understood as 
'mother' (cf. supra, p. 8), the divinity became feminine. 

I state now in brief outline the processes involved in the origin 
of the myth of Demeter Erinnys and Poseidon. The ligbtning- 
god, Poseidon (Apim ndpdl), had, let us suppose, a primitive 
Greek epithet *mdiar-ik'& 'roaring cloud,' or 'possessing a roar- 
ing cloud.' This epithet was also attached to *ddv-d 'fire (= 

' The contrmction of au to a in Aeolic U not piored by Hoffmann, Dial. II 
3g6, 893. The fern. gen. plur. in -av for -anuv (?) ii snspicious, for Ihe con- 
iciousneu of gender majr have been felt. U.oetiiav falls by my explanation of 
-iSiuv M gen. plui. to *iAa under the lame conditions (cf. sapra, p. 3). More- 
orer. ai Tlooitiav and Ti&v are name* of the ume divinity peihapi, it may well 
be that they have been ajtimilated in their final ayliablei. It a not absolutely 
neceu&ry, however, to regard the variant syllable ^a- \ Au-ti6riip as a contrac- 
tion of 'Aafu-tiaTi)p : it may be simply the result of some capricious choice of 
voweti in ihortening the diisyllable to a monosyllable. So in Attic Aitu^^p 
we have no contraction, but limply a choice of the vowel « out of Aafu.. 
Hete we must reckon with popular etymolc^: the A?- in Attic-Ionic Ar/iiirTiip 
may be charged to Yv ' earth ' ; while A"- of Aupinjp may be due to ia/ui ' house.' 

'I note especially ajji-iwipa, the wife of Kttcnlts, iiini ' tumt Atr hmiatitl' 
alive, and who had the short came Afii (Smyth. Grk. Dialects. I. p. byo). 

.y Google 


lightning),' whence, finally, by fresh composition and decompo- 
sition, Aaporqf} iinn) ; thence came a story describing the bawler 
Cfianjp) as furious ('Efuivur'). 

VII. Apollo. — Schroeder has, I take it, proved the substantial 
correspondence of Apollo and Agni in point of original functions 
(K. Z, XXIX 193 sqO- I cannot believe, however, in the kinship 
of the name 'aitAXuv with Sk. saparyeryya, a hapaxlegomenon 
vocative epithet of Agni in RV., for the sufiixes are too dissimilar 
and the meaning of the epithet, 'one to be honored,' is rather too 
pale. A suspicious circumstance to me is the loss of the rough 
breathing (infra, p. 24). Apollo and Poseidon are both individ- 
ualizations of epithets of Agni. Associations of Apollo and 
Poseidon in Greek mythology bring light upon this point: they 
were, for example, co-founders of Troy, and Poseidon preceded 
ApoUo in the possession of the oracle at Delphi (cf. also above, 
p. II, for the prophetic character of Poseidon's doubles, Tipmtis 
and tinpnit). It is right to mention here that the first possessor of 
this oracle was Tma {Tii) p^rip, confused perhaps with ^afiarrip as 
explained above. 

I find in RV. two epithets of Agni that may lie at the base of 
the name 'ArAXav. The first of these is apttir, defined by Grass- 
mannas 'geschaflig, emsig,'aad translated by Ludwigas'Wasser 
erbeutend.' The latter is, in my opinion, the more exact render- 
ing. I take the epithet to have belonged originally to the light- 
ning as rain-bringer, and to this the statistics of usage conform. 
The term is used in RV. once of Agni, twice of Indra (^ thrice 
of the lightning) ; otue of Indu (i. e. Soma) and thrice of Soma 
{=four times of the heavenly Soma, i. e. rain) ; once of the 
Vicve Devas along with a petition translated by Ludwig "sollen 
eiUg zum Safte kommen"; once of the eagles of the Afvins (cf. 
dfvi 'water,' supra, p. 3). There is fiinher one occurrence of 
the abstract aptilrya, used of Agni and Indra. Now, if we 
operate with aptfirya as an adjective stem like apttir, and take 
North Thessalian 'AirXmv-i into account, along widi 'AtrAAw, we 
can account for *A)roMo- as •aitoXj'o (for itxtiAyo<*Apt\yiO''), with 

' Kahn <1. c, p. 467) connect* with this epithet ipxutdi ' the wild Sg-iree,' 
and brings into the comparison the atoiy of how Agni hid bimseli once in 
a fig-tiee (the afvatthO, after haring tunied himself into a hone. Bnt 
M3tari(vaH [( the name of the Vedic Prometheot who brought the hidden 
AfDi out of the kindling iticki bjr rabbing, and one of tbeie stick* was of 
oftuNMrf wood, which ampljr accounts for the Hinda l^end. 

.y Google 


loss of r because of Knkov (for "Am-XMyo-). The addition of -r 
to the stem would be an afiectioD from noirtidoov. If we see in 
°lur of apiar Aryan °fr*"„' then we can account for the gjaded 
forms 'aitAXvv, etc, by noting how gradation acted in the agential 
suffix "ip'i- Cyprian 'AirtAav-i, if genuine, makes for the assump- 
tion of the extension of the stem by -yo. Another point in favor 
of this explanation is that it possibly accounts for the varying 
quantity of the initial syllable ('air°, i. e. An-"). I note also that 
Athena has the epithet 'OimXtnc, which is perhaps to be compared 
with apitir. 

But there is another Vedic personage with whom 'AintXXaiv is 
possibly to be identified, viz. Atharuan, a mythic person 'who 
came from heaven, fetched 6re to the earth, honored the gods 
and slew evil things' (cf. Grassmann, s. v.)- In Avestan we have 
two forms of this name, S^ava with a case-form dfauruni. Like 
the first of these forms is 'AirXaur ( < •orXof w ; for t\ > trX cf. the 
author, Am. Jour. Phil. XIII 463 sq.; Proc Am. PhiL Assoc, for 
1893, xxiii sq., 1894, i. ix), while 'AmfXXav is for "'diroXfa*, with ir for 
r, from the fonn 'AtrXow, and so corresponds with Sk. atharvan. 
We nowhere have, however, any forms showing X/ or X with com- 
pensative lengthening, and the Cyprian form 'AirfABv-i seems to 
demand a stem *itriKyo: But this form is of doubtful genuine- 
ness, for in inscriptions from the same locality of an earlier date 
the form 'A«r<ax«« is found (cf. Joh. Schmidt, K. Z. XXXII 328), 
and, indeed, on an earlier portion of the same inscription. 
Apollo's character as a 'terrible god of death, sending virulent 
pestilences and dealing out destruction to men and animals by 
means of his unerring arrows,' allows us to reasonably assume 
that there was popular association with ^AXu^, Touching the 
variation oft and o in this stem, I believe Joh. Schmidt has given 
the right explanation when he attributes it to the infection of a 
vocative ^'AircXXoi. to 'AitoXXdv, an influence due to the of the 
final syllable (K. Z., 1. c) This vocative form in the primitive 
Greek period was associated with inSk\viu, and so, even if we 
assume a primitive nom. *A)r*Xf«r, it is fair to suppose that under 
the influence of 'AiraXXar (which had been affected by oirdXXvfu) it 
reached the stage *Kirik\m. We may assume, however, that X^ 
fell out because of the form 'AirXouf, as explained above. On the 
warrant of the Avestan forms taken in comparison with Sk. 

I For B ditcnstioD of Sk. ^t^ and the Aiyin r,, I refer to loy articles in An. 
Jour. Phil. Xin 463 tq., and Proc. Am. Phil. Assoc, 1S93, xxir, and 1894, a, ix. 

.y Google 


dtharoan, we have a right to believe that the word was liable to 
gradation (cf. Prellwitz, B. B. IX 330). 

On (he legendary side there is everything to say in favor of 
identifying the fire-god Apollo with Atharvan, a manifestation of 
the Vedic Agni. The description of Atharvan cited from Grass- 
mann might in fact be taken as a brief 'argument' for the Homeric 
hymn to Apollo. 

One of the puzzling epithets of Apollo is 'A^^rttp (I 404), 
explained as the 'archer' (a^i)fu) or, by the scholiast, as the 
'prophet' (from the so-called d copuUUwum-V^^. Why can 
we not explain it as the 'kindler' and connect with d^' 'a 
kindling/ d^ow 'polish' (='make bright'), &mm 'kindle' (?). all 
of which belong to Aryan d>a%h 'bum' (for the abnormal rough 
breathing cf. the next number) P 

VIII. 'A^ourroc. — The legends of this divinity are also in close 
touch with the Vedic legends of Agni. Thus, according to one 
story, he was so lame and ugly that his mother flung him into the 
sea, where he was tended by the Oceanids, a legend which is 
quite plainly only a variant of the tale of Agni hiding in the 
waters. At the base of all the legends lies this fundamental 
notion that fire first came down from heaven in the form of 
lightning. There is possible etymol<^ical relation also between 
'a^oiotm and Agni. The root would be d>aik-* 'burn,' which, 
before nasals (cf. Noreen, Urgerm. Lautlebre, §51, 3'), had a 

''Af^ also means 'grup' sod airru ' fasten ': the temuy ii limilar to that 
ihowii by iiJni above (p. 16) : kindlings and faitenings were equally made of 
tw^. We have the ume tema»yin L»t./a^-t 'torch' And /a-ic-it' twitcb- 
Cwilhe'). I refer on the 'ef/-Kt-%aSx to my 'AfglntiiMtioQ,' etc.. Am. Jonr. 
Phil. XV 435. 

'The root-Towel ita; cf. Germ, oimy 'gloaming' (the anthor, Mod. Lang. 
Note*, IX, col. 369), Gtk. i/iap 'day' (^-n- with n>inflexion), Lat. amdne 
'dawn' «a^; cf. the author, Proc. Am. Phil. AtMc., 1S94, 3. lii). In Lith. 
4igti ' to bam ' beside ddgaj ' harvest ' we seem to hive the i/ff-gt*de, but in 
Lith. the t/o and <f/i)-grade« became e/a and a/e, and along the common term 
a there wa* doabtlesi paitage from the ie%» common to the more common 
leiiea (cf. the author on such transitions. Am. Jour. Phil. XTII 47B). In Lith. 
ufith'ire' (for *agni-) there has been confusion with hmJj ' BrenneHel' (cf. 
the antbor, Hod. Lang. Notes, XI aag). In Lat. igtii* (or *tmnu (cf. the 
anthoT, Proc. Am. Phil. Assoc. 1S94, 3. Hi), there was either association with 
Hgmwtt ' fire-wood' (ib., L c., liii) or, more probably, with iehti (infra, p. 35), 

* But, ai we ihall presently see, Agni can be explained u belonging to 4/j/ 
' drive,' and thus be, along with aiiui ' day,' the source of the inconstant d of 
^d>agk (cf. the author. Mod. Lang. Notes, IX, col. 167, and Hopkins, Proc. 
Am. Phil. Assoc., 1899, p. cluvi). 

.y Google 


by -form dka^ witb antidpative aspiration and a contaminated form 
*dkaik.' 'AifMtaTet is congeneric witb &n-w. Tbe abnonna] rough 
breathing bad its origin in tbe name of the god. Greek was 
endowed with stems Ay- (: Sk. ^_yaj 'sacrifice') 'sacred' and ay- 
(Sk. igoj 'sin') 'accursed,' meeting in a common groimd 'saetr.' 
Tbe former stem was of frequent application to the names of 
divinities, and a pietistic feeling carried the rough breathing (an 
awed whisper perhaps) over to names of divinities witb vowel- 
initial (c£ tbe author, Am. Jour. Pbil. XVI 7). This was subse- 
quent to the loss of the Greek feeling against aspirates in two 
successive syllables; thus li-(j>af<not, but hx^ Tbe name T^oumw 
is compound: -jip+al/rror, tbe latter belonging with oI^n 'bum,' 
Lat. iudes 'sacred hearth,' and, before popular etymoli^y had 
set in (supra, p. 13), with'AtSijf. 

But tbe myth of 'Ai^oMTTor can be shown to have very definite 
connection witb a mythological personage of the Vedas, viz. AJd 
ikapdd, and from the name of tbe latter we are able to gain a 
closer view of the name of Agni. Tbe most marked character- 
istic of *A<^iirrar is bis lameness, and Ajd ^^a/at/b the 'limping 
driver.' This personage is mentioned six times in the Rig-Veda, 
in every instance in a hymn to the Vifve Devas ' All Gods.' 
That he bad to do witb storms is every way clear, for be is 
always mentioned in a group of storm-gods. At ii 31. 6 Trita 
'Thunder' (cf. supra, p. 12) and Apam Napat 'Son of the 
Waters' (cf. supra, p. 1) are grouped with him, the latter also 
in vii 35. t3, while at x 65. 13 and x 66. 11 tanyattis 'thunder' 
and the Apas 'Waters' are mentioned; Samudra^ 'Ocean' (^ 
Apas) is associated in vi 5a 14. and vii 35. 13. At x 64. 4 Kavis 
Tuvirivan 'Seer toud-raging' (= ^ahsa, supra, p. 11) is men- 
tioned. The identification of these two limping lightning- 
divinities seems to me unavoidable, 

1 turn to consider Ajd as a lightning -god. In the .Rig- Veda 
Indra drives at (*/d + aj") Vrtra, the cloud-demon (v 37. 4); 
drives together (sam+ 1/ aj) his enemies (vi 25. 9 and vii 32. 7). 
Moreover, at Hi 45, 2 Indra is endowed witb the epithets Vrtra- 
kkSdif valajhrujdh purirh damn) ap&m ajah ' Vrtra- slayer, Vala- 
breaker, cloud-splitter, wMcr-driver.' Now, if it be a fair assump- 

'Tbii it how I explain 10 myself the rooti with doable aspintei, and it 
juscifiet the phonetici of dvy-ir^p in Greek, without lecouTse to Bartholonae't 
•]avr'(K. Z. XXVII ao6). For our present toot Wow? -Mornine-Elow' (ef. 
Mai Mailer, Oxford Euayi, 1B56, p. 57) seemt to demand a bale ^OgA-, not 

.y Google 


tion that the storm-god /IJd ikapad is a form of lightning, then 
Aj& may be an etymological congener of Agni. The name of 
Agni has before now been associated with V<i/' drive,' and Grass- 
mann defines by "das Feuer, als das bewegliche aufgefasst." 
Instead I would make Agni the lightning, a driver of the waters, 
like Indra, Apim Aj&l^, 

But as Agni became a common word for fire it was doubtless 
associated with *dakan || ^ahan (Eng. dawn : Ger. abend, cf, the 
author, Mod. Lang. Notes, IX, col. 269), with inconstant d> (cf. 
supra, p. 23, footnote 3). Thus there grew up a root "dh^agk, 
illustrated in Greek by ima 'kindle' (supra, p. 23^ and by raipot 
'funeral (cremation), astonishment (burning-of-the-heart)." 

The corresponding Greek group shows abnormal phonetics. I 
compare with Sk. aj&s 'goat' aif (gen. idy-it), with Aj&s 'storm- 
god' aiy-K 'Zeus's flashing shield (i. e. lightning), hurricane' (cf. 
iwn-^Cu, Hom., used of a stormy wind), and with agni-s 'fire' 
aryXi) 'radiance.' All three Sanskrit words I refer to »J aj'Arvie.' 
The objection will hold that agni-s has a 'velar' (cf. O.Blg. ognis 
'fire'), but we have already seen (supra, p. 16) how 'velar' and 
' palatal ' interchange. 

It is very curious that the Greek words I have cited all show 
the same phonetic abnormality. The source of this I would trace 
to t^y-it, a'ykti where there is alliteration (fore-rhyme) with a'&» 
'bura,' I suggest. Inasmuch as Armen. aic 'goat' corresponds 
in its vocalization with al^, we shall probably have to refer the 
rise of the abnormaUty in these words to the primitive period. 
Greek retains, however, traces of the normal forms, viz. in ay-Xait 
'shining' (beside a\yh{), where the stem is in the same stage as in 
ag-nis 'fire.' 

Very curious, too, is the fact that the Vedic storm-god Ajd 
Mkapad means, by double entendre, 'goat one-footed,' while ndr 
tlylroot is a 'goat-footed stonn-god,' and the epithets are phonet- 
ically absolutely identical save in the variation of the guttural 
between surd and sonant 

la Latin also it is perhaps possible to trace the connection of 
ignis with agere? We should expect for ignis *emnis, according 
to my proposed law, Italic f««< Aryan 8« (Proc. Am. Phil. Assoc, 
1894, 2, lit, and, for e, ib. 1894, i, x). The abnormality of ignis 
is due to assodation with ictus, ptc. of iacic 'throw' in origin, but 
subsequently associated with icere, to which the ptc. ictus had 

'Ptoc Am. PbU. Astoc., 1S9S, 3, liii. 'Cf. alio Mod. Ltng. Noiei, XI 139. 

Digitized by Google 


given rise, just as in English the ptc told, in tbe phrase 'the knell 
was told,' has given rise to the verb U Ml, with, in this case, a 
new ptc tolUd. We can make pretty sure of tbe idiom iacere 
{itere) ignsm from Cic ad AtL XV 26. 2 interdum iacit igniculos 
viriles- Beside this we can put Ennius's line (VahL V 93) : exin 
Candida se radiis dedit icta foras lux, ' then the dear dawn was- 
stnick-alight (icta), and put herself forth with her rays.' Other 
passages are Qc Har. Resp. 45 ut vos itsdem ignibus circum- 
saepti me primmn ichtm pro vobts et fiimantem viderelis, and 
Ov. Het. 15. 348 ea (sc. materia) condpit ictibus igoem. 

The best proof, perhaps, of this locution is to be got from 
iacere fnhmett and icius/tdmiiu (Cic. Div. II 45 and I 16). Here 
fuimen has ousted ignis, we may suppose ; as in English ' strike 
a ligW and 'strike a Match' represent 'strike a_/fo(/.' In the 
spedfic soise of lightnii^ I can find do very early instance of 
ignis, but Vergil's ignes (Aol IV 167) may well be an archaism, 
seeing how sorely Agni means 'Ughtnir^' in tbe Veda. Lucre- 
tius (VI 309-16) uses igtds and iehts three tiroes each within a 
single sentence, in describing the lightning. 

These examples may be held, I ihink, to demonstrate that a 
connection had been made by the Roman mind between ignis 
and ictiu. We can also come at the semasic connection between 
ignis and ngere by noting Lucr. II 675 seinMJas agere 'shoot out 
sparks,' besde ignem iaeere in the previous line. 

IX. Ttyamkd. — ^This word is a faapaxlegomenon at RV. iii 56. 
3, and is. Like pnrvamita (five times in the voc, exdusivdy of 
Agni), probably an epithet of Agni. So Grassmann takes it, but 
Ludwig, after Siyana, ascribes it, incorrectly 1 believe,* to India. 
It is defined 'three-bced.' Lat. aeies in its varied senses pretty 
exactly covers the range of meaning shown by dmia. I would 
translate by 'three-edged." and refer the epithet to tbe lightning 
in the band of Agni or of India. Cognate with dMhia a Grfc. 
•iKJc {<c*aMjv-'), defined usually as 'dread.' but definable also by 
'sharp,' and mainly used of words referring to battle: (be super- 

'Th« epithet belongs to rpu.'ijl 'baJI,' a c^nmo'D cpiibet of Ajni in 
tinei in RV'.): th« three go>iJeae« {^ir^J MiU't a( the prertoas uaoia are 
AjnTi miiniog.molher» (cf, GnsimaiiB, WJr!.. l v. :^ j. 5); the TerereDce in 
tbe following tunia to the inten' RiTirj w»» remic js oi \gtsi'i tidisg in the 
T>ler> (cf. I ■nm.n NoMs lo R(«>iei. [<. ;-»'■ ui-i A^ai teem 10 be alladed l« 
in ihe new lUnla b«l one (ri«j.-«r*B *«w3( • trier «; tte u;.-ncei~V. 

■ The wrd *miia a ipccul'.j vvr^ o) the siiiip p^n; of m airv* oi uce (cf. 
Gtusnumn. t. t. SL 

, Google 


lative is restricted to Zeus, the ligfatning-wielder par excellence. 
But pQseidon was also a god of storm. In Homer he raises the 
winds (X 400, 407), the waves (« no): he has his seat on a 
mountain-top (n 12), while in another place (r 150) he puts a 
cloud about his shoulders.' He also assists Zeus to raise a storm 
(Y 56). With this conception I would bring Poseidon's trident — 
rpiaira — in touch, comparing it with the epithet tryanlkd. 

As against this explanation I mention Brugmann's (I. F. Ill 
261), who works out on the basis of SfSnti 'three-pronged-hoe' a 
stem *Tpi'hi-t-aK; basing *hi-p-aK on Sk. sina 'dart' Touching 
the phonetic development of ipira^ he says: "In der letzteren 
Form musste bei der Kontraktion der beiden 1 die Liquida durcfa 
Antizipation des h tonlos und infolge davon r zur Aspirata 
werdea, vgl. if,poCtet aus *irpe 66ot" This reasoning is not, in my 
opinion, cogent. In any case there must have been a transfer 
of the aspiration before contraction could take place, and if we 
have a stage *rpuva(, why not also 'r^duo ? I am quite willing 
to admit, however, that an intervocalic A fell away in Greek at an 
earlier stage between identical vowels than it did between dis- 
similar vowels (cf. Lat. nil, nihil). But dpivof lets itself be con- 
nected directly with Sanskrit words of nearly equivalent meaning. 
I note the adjective dhrfnil ' bold,' for which the sense ' sharp ' may 
be vindicated by citing the compound dhft^tliena 'with a sharp 
dart': this facet of meaning is also shown hy dhf^dj 'h.MO,' v'nh 
the epithet Hgmd 'sharp.' I note also dhar^asi (for *dharaia- 
si ?), used prevailingly as an epithet of Soma (cf. dfii- and tigmd- 
'sharp,' both Soma epithets), but used also of the thunderbolt 
(vdjra-) and of the vision (crf^flapa-). I would therefore explain 
tfpTniffrom *iMr|n0+ii^ 'sharp-point,' whence SpiyaK-. In dpTvojifi}, 
the Odyssey name for Sicily (?), I would see the sense 'land of 
sharp promontories.' In gradation with dpimf as thus explained 
would be dpiy-K-dr 'projecting coping.' That the dpuul was not 
necessarily a three-pointed instrument, though popularly so inter- 
preted, the following passage from Aristophanes seems to show 
(Pax 567 sq.) : 

oT Tt $piwaK€t StaoTikffm/at wpit rit ifKu». 

&vr tyity ipq vitfufia xaiirit ZkBtM tSt aypir 

ml rpinifovv rj tinf'XXg tii jfpiwQv ri y^iier, 

>So, hanrever. doother godi quit« cominonlf , but we have seen hoi* mtny 
of them leem to be indiTidaaliiationi of cpithcti of fire. 

Id b, Google 


Here the itMcXXa S^bidens^) is equivalent to ffpitmi, and both have 
been alike associated, as the verb shows, with rpuwo. 

With this group we may compare Lot. /tucina 'trident'< 
'dkrS'Cifta, or perbaps from *dhrsn-ua, 'having sharp points,' 
with 'skipping' from *fusnua to/usciMO, 

The root to which I refer (Tpi-'jaaa is oik, Grk. b^ 'reap,' Sk. 
Vom 'injure,' ama 'Andrang — der Geschosse,' etc. This root 
had a by-form an, originating from ^Mus-i (>*nfi'), Lat. ens-is, 
Sk. a-s-i ' sword ' ; cf. Sop ( <*a''cr-o^) with a different suffix. For 
the kinship of the rpltara and Sip I cite z 385, where Poseidon is 
pictured as follows : 

Snrav Sop rtwvtiKtt <j(ogi> ir xop* '"X'h 
ttaXof ouTtpims, 
comparing with it S 506: 

In the former of these passages Poseidon's character oi Apim 
Ndpdt comes out very clearly ; * for he had a dread sword in his 
hand like the lightning.' 

1 am aware that I have equipped the lightning-divinity with 
many names and personalities in the foregoing essay. But so 
have the Vedic hymn-writers. Indra is purtl-^man 'many- 
named' (RV. viii 93. 17) and purii-varpas 'many-figured' (ib. x 
I30. 6), while Agni {Ap6m Ndpdf) and Indra are pum-rtpa 
'many-formed' (Agni thrice and Indra once), and Agni is besides 
purvanika (Jive times). But for the many-named Agni I can do 
no better than cite RV. iii 20. j** : 

Agne bhtrini iava jdtavedo 
diva svadkdvo 'mftasya nima; 

'Agni, thou art manifold, tbou Jatavedas 
Thou divine Svadkdvan^ in thy immortal names.' 

It is obvious also that my explanations, notably of Apollo, 
substitute lightning-myths for sun-myths. Indra, Zeus and 

'It occDit to me that postibly JWi/id tun. which i) pie-eininen(l]f uied of 
A{tii, belong! to f/i/Jil 'kindle' (cf, X-aX./Smui 'imoke'), and wu oiigiiiall<r 
andentood, like the traditional explaaation of idnH-ndpdl {sapra. p. to), as 
' leK-kindline-' So VA.injn would be nltimately (cf, Noreen, 1. c., gsL Adid. 
I. and the author, Am. Jour. Phil. XVI 3, Tootnote 3) kindred with LtiL (inpra, 
p. 19). 

.y Google 


Jupiter, the highest deities in their respective cosmogonies, were 
clearly personifications of the lightning. In Greek and Latin 
certainly the myths of the sun pure and simple (i^ior and Sol) 
are quite insignificant in comparison, though this is not the state 
of the case in the Vedas. 

For my own part, I think a lightning-cult has a-priori a simpler 
origin than a sun-cult. Lightning impresses by its suddenness ; 
lightning is a visible and sensible messenger from the Invisible 
Above to the visible below, being now and then a vast agent for 
destruction sent upon man out of the Unknown. On the other 
band, the sun moves on, calm and irresistible, with only an occa- 
sional eclipse to strike man with the awe that springs from the 
unexpected. Storms interfere, to be sure, with the sun's course, 
but all that is terrible in storm is lightning-flash and thunder-roll. 
On these grounds 1 have no hesitation in substituting lightning- 
myths for sun-myths. 

WuHiKOTO* ..D Ln U»i»M*mr. EDWIN W. FaY. 

Murek B, 1B91. 

.y Google 

PROPERTIUS, I 21 AKD II 32. 40. 

In Roscber's Lexicon of Greek aod Ronun Hytbidoey, s. v. 
Hamadryads, occnra a paragraph which may be translated as 


The BMBC'Huaailfyadi' «u not quite fixed, sad did dM deoole the trce- 
Bjmphi cxclonTclj. It ii also foud fieqaendj gcaq a lucd for DtTad*'— 
DTBpbi wlw lire ia tlte woodi. So m Nonno*. who am the wotd Diyu 
nielr: Ve^ E«l. 10.63; PUt. Epier. Aotb. Pal. 9.S33; H;n>. Aalb. P>L 6. 
1S9, where the; are called mtauoi nipm; Huian. Scholatt., Anth. PaL 9. 668; 
Calflll. 60. 33. Id fact the ouune often (eenu to denote the eotiietf of (be 
njmph* of a locality a* thej meet in the woodi for dancinc, pUy and the 
cbaie; coapore O*. Fait. >. 155: Met. 14. 6>4. 1.690; Propeit. %. 31,37. 34. 
76. And M thej were easily confooDded vith the Naiad*, the trce-nnnnring 
watei'Ojnpbi. In Ptopen. 1. ao, 3a the Naiadi who dnw Hjlas into their 
spring ate called ffamaJryaJts, and the une. t. 4s, Dry»da- In Or. Fait. 4. 
931 the Njmph Sagaritii, who belongi to a tree, ia called a Naix. Accordiog 
to Nicander, ap. AiL Lib. 30, Bjblit received diTinilj booi the Djmphi, and 
«ndeT (he name of 'kfiaipvat ViiiMi wa* taken into theit companj ; in O*. 
Met. 9. 664 (he ii changed into a ipring. Comp. Nikander, ap. Ant. Lib. 32. 

So says another German writer, A. Otto, comtncDtiiig on the 
Hylas elegy of Propertius, I 20, in 'Neue Beitrage zur Erklarung 
des Properz,' Hermes, XXIIl, p. 27 (1S88): 

So the name Hamadryadts appears as a representation of collections of 
nrmphs ID general (Prop. II 33. 37 : Caiall. 61. 11 sqq.; Verg. Eel. X 63 ; O*. 
Fast. II 1561 Metam. XIV 633). The diilinctioii is entirely abolished ('Bans 
anfgehoben ') in O*. Metam. I 690 inter Hamadryadts celeberrima Nonacrintit | 
Naim ana fnit; Stal. Silu. I 3. 63 led nnnc foisan nel Inbrica Nnt \ ael non 
abniptiM [ibi debet Hamadryat annos ; Ov. Fait. IV 131 JVaida oolneribu* 
taecidii in arien factis. Finally io PropeTtin* himself, II 33.37 Hoc et 
Hamidryadum spectaait tnrba loioram, compared with v. 40 Snpposita exci- 
pienl Naica dona manu, though here the reading is donbtfal. 

The indispensable Onomasticon to De VJt's Forcellini, s. v. 
Naiades, adds another confusion : 

cerinm est a qaibn*dun cam Hamadryadibas et Nereidibas confundi. [Ot. 
F. 4. 131 and Met. i. 690, 14. 556 are ciled] . . . pro quauis nympha ponaotur, 
[and Sil. It. ij. 773, Stat. Ach. i. 3g5 are cited]. 

.y Google 


With sucb a sariago laqnendi before me, I hardly know vhere 
to begia. My perplexity is increased when I reflect that forty- 
five years ago — thirty-eight years before A. Otto published his 
' new contribution ' to the explanation of Propertius— his theory 
was refuted by anticipation in one of the works' which have 
earned for R, Unger, the veteran professor of Halle, the title of 
' impense doctus,' and that on a foreigner falls the ungrateful task 
of instructing two German scholars in the researches of their 

The scholars from whom I have quoted appear hardly to have 
realized the extent of the demands they make upon our belief. 
The accredited ancient authors whom they cite confused, we are 
to suppose, wood-nymphs and water-nymphs with tree-nymphs,' 
confounded water-nymphs and sea-nymphs, and wrote tree- 
nymphs and water-nymphs where they meant nymphs in general. 
It is true that confusion of semi-divine personalities is a frequent 
and often a legitimate hypothesis in mythol<^ical inquiry. But 
what would be thought of, say, an attempt to show that the 
classical English writers confused sprites and mermaids with 
fairies, and used fairies and mermaids as general terms to include 
sprites and angels? Such or similar is this theory. Let us see 
how it is supported. 

Let us first cite a few of the passages which vouch for the exist- 
ence, down to the latest times with which we have any concern, of 
the distinctions which it is sought to obliterate. Plato, Anth. Pal. 
IX 833 fin. 'rhptabtt tiiiupat Nufii^ai 'A«ud/iudd>[ ; Ov. Met. 6. 453 
Naides et Dryades ; Schol. ad Horn. II. 30. 8 oi rii SKmt KaToucoiaai 
Nuft^i AXaijillM KoXovtrat al H tirl rvf iii^piar 'ApnSpi^Ati a! ii ra 
Mfurm rav vSarow NotStt nitl 'Yipuidfr cai TO^vv al fit* K/nji'llltt al 4c imlto' 

rofuftff ; Nonnos, Dionys. 34. 127-8 S/ia Apvadmi^i n Nuft^i | 'Atpv- 
aitt (= 'Afiafipvddn).' It may, however, be doubted whether such 
passages will have any effect in establishing (he distinctions when 
a place like Stat. Silu. I 3. 63 is used to overthrow them. The 

'An*l«cla Ptoperiiana (Hilii, 1850)," pamphlet to which, «» frequent refer- 
ence! will thaw, thii article ii greatly indebted. 

'And why not alio ' plain- nymphs,' on the aulhority of the passage of 
tiidore, VlII II. 97 Njrmphas quippe montium Oieades dicnnt. siluarum 
Drradet, eamporum Hamairyadit, fantium Naiadei, marit Nereides? Thii ii 
the ralgate Teading. No correclion I have seen leemt latisfaccory. 

'The Tenbner editor hai 'k^i^iteei tt, which also will construe. It 
mar, however, be doubled whether the true reading is not a/i* Tdpiddf^at re. 
Compare the paasaeet quoted for 'Tdfiidf below. 

.y Google 


tree there tnentiooed is under the protection of «tVA«ra Naiad or 
a Dryad*; and so these are the same, and our poet is turned 
mythological identifier or synonym-hunter! X/>q<r<w irv ^Aurpa*, 
tl di ffovku, Kdptonof] When again Ovid, Met. I 690, writes that 
'among the Nonacrian Hamadryads a Naiad was the most 
iamous,' it might have been supposed that his intention was not 
to obliterate distinctions, but to bring them out. Nor is it more 
reasonable to accuse the same poet of confounding Nereids and 
Naiads because he has written 'Naides atyuoreae' 'sea water 
nymphs.' It would be just as fair to charge the translators of 
the Bible with ignorance that the sea is salt because they speak 
of 'the fountains of the deep.' There Is no confusion here: only 
one of those transferences without which poetry would wellnigh 
be impossible. And to conclude with a Greek example, it will 
hardly be credited that the following are the words of Marianus 
Scbolasticus, from which evidence of confusion has been extorted, 
5 sqq. Kal y\vaprit rplirroixot tmiiffaiiv SkXor in' oXXfi | iiaarit opaffKlfftt 
^liliara tiaiaiot' | i«nr<JA i«>rdp7«iira yt'fm* wapar^jtn'ai'lpft | yapor, 
'AiiatfivaSiw trSiD* iBpoKn/tv*. Misapprehension of another 
custom of the poets supplies a considerable proportion of the 
remaining examples. When a poet describes Dtan huntmg 
with her nymphs, he feels no obligation either to enumerate 
every kind among her attendants or to use the generic term : he 
may mention one kind only and leave the rest to the imagination. 
Thus Ovid, Fasti, 2, 155, singles out the Hamadryads from the 
throng; Statius, Ach. i. 394 sq., and Silius Italicus, 15. 769 sqq., 
the Naiads.* 

In other places the special and proper meaning will do just as 
well as a more general one. What inference can be drawn from 
the words which Vii^l puts into the mouth of Callus, Eel. X 62 
sq. 'iam neque Hatnadryades rursus nee carmina nobis | ipsa 
placent ; ipsae rursus concedite siluae' ? Why should Gallus not 
have sung of tree-nymphs just as well as wood-nymphs? The 

> Id evei7 paiiage of theu two lalhorE in which the m««ning of N*i( can 
be aseertaiiud, it i> uted conectl]'. Stat. Silu. I 3. 307. 164 ; 5.6; II 3. 30, 60 ; 
6, loa; Sil. It. V ai, VI sBg. If we have doubts who were the A'oiaSri 
Hctauuat acconpanfini; Ptoterpine in Stat. Ach. I 835 sq., we iiib]> lake a bint 
from Ovid, Fasti, IV 433 sqq. frigida caeleslum matrei Artlkma nocarat ; ] 
aenerat ad tacras et dea flana dapes. | filia. coasaetii nt erat comilata paellit, [ 
errabat nudo per lua prata pede. | ualle sub umbroaa locus est, atpeTgine 
mulla I uuidus ex alto deailientis aquai. The hostess and the surroundinEi 
sufficiently indicate the company. 

, Google 


same passage, t<^ether with Ed. Ill 9 sed faciles nyniphae 
risere, furnishes the basis of an allusion by Propertius to the 
Eclogues, II 32. 75 sq. quamuis ille sua lassus requiescat auena, | 
laudatur /afiTrV inter Hamadryadas. If this be taken as proof 
that Propertius confused Nymphs and Hamadryads, then, in the 
name of consistency, let us take lines 69, 70, where allusion is 
made to Virg. Eel. Ill 70, as proof that he also confounded boys 
and girls. 

In the case of the Hamadryades it is not difficult to see how 
the notion might arise that they were not always distinguished 
from the Dryades. Their relation to the trees that they protect 
is differently represented by different authors. Sometimes it is as 
close as that of body and soul : kill the tree and the tree-nymph 
dies. Sometimes they are simply the trees' protectors. So appa- 
rently in Catull. 61 (60J. 21 sqq. floridis uelut enitens | myrtus 
Asia ramulis [ quos Hamadryades deae | ludicrum sibi roscido | 
Dutriunt umore. Ovid, Met. 14. 633 sqq. rege sub hoc Pomona 
fuit qua nulla Latinas | inter Hamadryadas coluit sollertius 
hortos I nee fiiit arborei studiosior altera fetus: | unde tenet 
nomen : non siluas ilia nee amnes, | nis amat et ramos felicia 
pom a ferentes. 

If Nifufiai 'Afiaipvaiit, the traditional reading in Moero's (not 
Myro's) epigram in Anib. Pal. VI 189 were correct, we should have 
a certain misuse of 'AiiaSpvaS^t for water-Dymphs ; but more than 
half a century ago Unger proved it to be corrupt, and his correc- 
tion 'AviyptdOn has been accepted by Duebner in his edition where 
extracts from his arguments are quoted.' 

Before passing on to the passages which demand further discus- 
sion, let us state the present outcome of our inquiries. In all 
places where the meaning can be exactly ascertained, Hamadty- 

' The pauagct cited from Antoninui Libenlii >re worthleti »s eridence ; 
bat that nothing may seem to have been omitted, I quote tbem In this note. 
30 7 fiiv (ic ri ii\iieimi tpof iraptMoiea /tifrreiv iavr^p iirixtlpvat ; Ni/ft^ Hi 

Aaiiiom uni inAfnutav'Afiadpvada virfj^Tjv nal tnmffeavro evv6iaiT0V irattiida 
(obTiouslj an attempt lo explain the Dame 'A/iadpviia). naktirai 6i ad tb jtias 
it r^ TriTpof iaivtn Lxpi vvv napa rait ivixufwii^ i&xpiioii Bi^Jidof. 31 inii ff 
o«r^ (i. e. Apuimpi) iffAir^av inrcp^viit 'A/iadpvditf vbii^i. «ii riroi^aiiro av/i- 
s-oijir/xnv iavriiv iiftfriv Oioif nai jopriitiv — mi (i[ rovro ira/maaii rb icpbv ipvdw^ 
^pitaoav 'KfUjApvASe^ car' ev/irvtiav nai aiif^ fiiv aitiKpu^v ff r^ h^Jp*, avrl iT 
fuin^ aiyeipov hvifiiKai in r^f }^ tal iropa r^t> tiiyiipov Hup avipfiti^av dptnjin; 
a^ Koi dvrl ftiji-jt iftrtTo vi/i^. 

, Google 


adei carries a reference to single trees, Dryades to woods in 
general, and Naide's to streams of water. As these three sorts of 
nymphs were frequently in each other's company, the mention of 
one sort may suggest another; but of actual confusion, except in 
corrupt passages, we have hitherto found no trace. 

The stronghold of the advocates of confusion is the Hylas 
elegy of Propertius (I 30). If there is one statement on which 
all classical myth is agreed, it is that Hercules was robbed of 
Hylas by one or more water-nymphs or Naiads. If then Pro- 
pertius, himself in accord with this tradition, calls the robbers 
Dryades or Adryades in v. 12, Hamadryades in v. 32 and 
Dryades in v, 45, there is no more to be said. Let us consider 
the matter a little. Propertius is warning Callus not to trust his 
Hylas 100 near the water. 7 sqq. huic tu, sine leges Vmbrae 
sacra ftumina siluae | siue Aniena tuos tinxerit unda pedes | 
siue Gigantea spatiabere Htoris ora \ sjue ubicumque uago flu- 
minis hospitio I Nympkarum cupidas semper defende rapinas. 
What nymphs, we ask, is he warned against by this fourfold 
mention of streams? and the common reading returns us the 
answer iree-nymphs, or wood-nymphs in general, 'non minor 
Ausoniis est amor Adryasin' (or 'a, Dryasin'). In v. 34 Hylas 
is sent to draw water 'sacram sepositi quaerere yimAj aguam.' 
Where did he go? 'Oh,' says the vulgate of v. 32, 'he went to 
the tree-nymphs! '» dolor ibat Hylas, ibat Hamadryasin' And 
where were they? In Pege or Pegae (DTyoi)- 'grata domus 
nymphis umida Thyniasin,' 34, in the centre of a well-watered 
meadow {^irriguo prato,' 35). Well, the truant finally reaches 
the water's edge: 'formosis incumbens nescius undis' (41) — 
'tandem haurire parat demissis flumina palmis (43) innixus 
dextro plena irahens umero,' When he is seen by — water-nymphs 
at last, cries the reader. ' Not a bit of it,' says the vulgate ; ' by 
wood-nymphs in general,' 'Dryades puellae,' who 'prolapsum 
leuiter facili traxere liguore.' Hylas, now safe in the spring, 
utters a cry which (50) 'ah extremis /on/idtu aura refert.' And 
the poet, after such excellent fooling, concludes in a fine vein of 
irony: 'his, o Galle, tuos monitus seruabis amores.' Now, those 
who defend this must show one of two things: either that Proper- 
tius was ignorant of the proper use of these names or that, 
knowing it, he neglected it. Will they then maintain that what 
was known to Plato, to Apollonius, to Ovid, to Silius, 10 Statius, 
to Nonnos, to Ausonius, to Paulus Silentiarius, was unknown to 

.y Google 


Propertius? Or will they make Propertius, in effect, aver that 
'though 1 am well aware that Hamadryas and Dryas are the 
wrong words to express my meaning, 1 will not trouble to use 
the right ones. But never mind ; I will so contradict them by 
everything else I say that it will be just the same as if I had not 
used them at all'? Too great a concession, one would think, to 
the corrupt manuscripts of Propertius. The purging of the text 
began with Lachmann (iSi6), who introduced the Hydriads 
into V. 12, quoting the epigr. of Plato, v, supra, and Paulus 
Sileniiarius (Anih. VI 57. 7): 'xtpiaitt tOiii^uu ii ai* {Aor6iitnm 

(1. e. &pvaair) xop'"" I trrriaav fVil naiiritt nakXaxit tfc0dj9(i. To whicfa 

may be added Schol. II. XX 8 (supra) ; Porphyr. antr. nymph. 

13, 17. l8, 19, 24; NonnOS, IX 81 'rS/xac 'l»i, XVI 357 'Yifn6ia>r, 

XXni 371, XLIII 95 (all without NifA^tat, though in XVI 358 we 
have Nvji^i 'ApiSpvaAn following in the next line).' Lachmann, 
however, strangely enough, lelt Dryades in v. 45 and Hamadry- 
odes in 32. For the former Unger (op. cit.) restored Hydriades, 
while for the latter, after mentioning the names '■E^vtplin,^ 'E'i>vifn- 

ain, Mt$vifndi4t, Nv/i(^( (^vAoTUU, Nitufxu Tnryiuai nal t'lrCtpia nvtviiara* 

he finally proposed ai Hydriasin, a conjecture rightly rejected 
by Baehrens on account of the position of at. In 33 we have to 
decide between the two alternatives of Baehrens, Ephydriasin 
(note) and Enydriasin, better Enhydriasin, (text). The first is 
well supported, occurring in Anth. Pal. IX 327 Nu/i^i 'E^u3puid>r 
(Hermocreon); ib. 329 (Leonidas Tarentinus) ; Alexander Aeto- 

lus, ap. Parthen. 14. 22 afrit 4' *U ttuiufiat ^X"' 'Expvipiaiac, of 

which the present passage may be a reminiscence.* Compare 
also the 'EifivSpiStt of Artemidorus. But Enhydriasin, though 
occurring nowhere else, is distinctly nearer to the tradition ama- 
drias hinc AFN {iamadrias i-ryas V) hinc DV). And to the 
word itself no objection need be taken when we compare Soph. 

' Fape, lexicon of proper nunei. also quotei Nonnos, XLIII 333 (leg. 333), 
I psuage which will be found on p. 373 of toI. II of the Teubner text. 

'From Arlemidonia 3. 36 rtoTo/ioJ mi Al/ivai koI Vli/upai [mi] 'B^piSti (for 
the juti (hould be bracketed). 

* From a late oracle in Jo. Lydui ; compare the use of irvd/iara. 

*C. M. Francken, in the paper refeTred to below, says with truth that there 
ii liitie agreement between the »eriioni of the myths in Propertius and the 
colleclion of Parthenius which is dedicated lo Cornelius Gallus. But il would 
be absurd lo contend that Propertius could only icnow the poem of Aetolus 
Irom this collection. 

.y Google 


PhilocL 1454 ri^^ T imipot X(ifwnat«' (also the name in the 
inscription in Boeckh, Corpus I. Gr. Ill 596S 'EnipaJli] n. nawipiot 
AiRi«i[ou] IImip[io<i] inr<X(v[r]«pM 'Epot (i. e, 'Ep»t) awiOtimr), and 
remember that for uOvtfuMtt, a precisely similar compound to it 
and t^vSpuiAfr, we have only one example, Alcaeus Messenius, 
Anth. Pal. App. Plan. 336. 6.* 

We must return for a moment to I3. The MSS end the line 
with adriacis, and to this Lachmann's {k^ydriasm does not seem 
sufficiently near ; compare the different corruption in 32. If, on 
the other hand, {h^ydriadas was the original, every letter (except 
of course the h) has been preserved in adriacis ; for i and y are 
equivalent, and c, d \s a not uncommon interchange. Thus in 
Prop. Ill 14. 5 F reads ueiadis for uthci; 13 ameuumicum for 
-dum, the same MS; and duM and ^mare confused at II 14. it, 
26. 47. &/, then, would appear to be 3d pers. of edo ; cf. in this 
sense Virg. Aen. IV 66 ^j/ mollis flamma medullas, and especially 
CatuU. 91. 6 quoius me magjuts edebal amor. And we must 
combine the emendation of Perreius, Ausonias — Adryadas, with 
that of Lachmann, thus reading Ausonias — Hydriadas. 

Before passing on we may meet some possible objections to the 
readings that have been recommended. It is true that the vulgate 
correction in 33, Hdmadryasin, is somewhat nearer to the tradi- 
tion than Enhydriasin ; but the confusion of a and e, m and « is 
perpetual, and the one word is extremely rare, while the other is 
fairly common': while in the other place (13) every one of the 
proposals — a, DryoHn, Adryasin, in Dryasin, et Dryasin, 
between which we must choose, appears to involve at least as 
much change as the reading we have preferred. In 45 Ifydriad^s 
for driades or dryades is of course a change, but not a difficult 
one. Some will no doubt here prefer the rhythm to frhich they 

■ This passage, which well illustnto Propertiut' inigne— fr ato, is sufficient to 
dercDd "Svpaar \ %«/uui<5uv(RnhDken, of our njrmpbs). Orpb. Arg. 649, agaiost 
Unger's \ifiMa6ur. Xtu-'v aod Xii/i-of X/iju-uf, as philologisu know, contaia 
differcDt fonns of the same root. Xtifiunaitt, aoolhei fonn, ocean again in 
Orph. HfiDn. SO (Si). 4. ■ cilalogne of almost all ihe appellations of ever? 
kind of n jmph, inclnding 'A>uiipivii(,'r, 13. 

* I am glad to note that Leo does nol follow Baecheler in defending the text 
of Culex. 04 *q. o pecudes, o Panes et o gratissima lempe \/*Mtit Harnadr?- 
adam, though his irrttis is pataeogTapbicaltjr lei> probable than the generally 
accepted frvmdU of Heinsias. 

'It would seem that cnkydriatin was first corrupted to iamttdtytuim and 
then this further corrupted. 

.y Google 


are accustomed; but the elision is Propertiaa; cf. e. g. 11 17. it 
quetn modo relic(eni) inuidia adridente ferebant; ib. 18. 19 at tu 
etiaiD iuueii(en)) odisti me peiiida cum sis; and to my ear it is 
more suggestive of the Nymphs' excitement than the smoother 

The remaining passages may be conveniently considered in 
connexion with another corrupt passage of Propertius, II 33. 

33 sqq-: . ^ 

ipui Venus qaamuiB comipta libidlne Martis 

nee minua in caelo sempei honesls fait 
qaaaiuis Ida Parim pastorem dicat anaaue 3J 

aique inier pecodes accnbuisie dcam. 
boc el Hamad rjtadum tpectanit lurba lotarum 

Sile aique senes et pater ipse choii, 
com qatbui Idaeo lecisti poma sab antro 

nbposita excipiens Naica dena manu. 40 

The difficulty of line 33 is attested by the readings ferhir N 
for quamuis and uixii L (the Holkham MS, see Transactions of 
the Cambridge Philological Society, vol. V, part I) for Marlis. 

' After the above wa« written, at if to add another proof of the necetiitf of 
thii io>«ilieBtion, appeared the paper of a Dutch scholar, C. M. Francken, 
MDemoiTDe, XXIII, pp. 3q6 sqq. It shows the same ignorance of Unger's 
retearches and the same lack of discrimination in dealing with the evidence. 
I will refer (o some of hii observations which have not been covered by the 
previous discussion. In 3a he reads ' a dotort ibat Hylas ibat amer ihyiuin' 
for {K)amadriat Mtu. His reasons against the dat. ate ' constructio est insolita 
{qnamnii non sine eiemplo) eC pro re quam continent aerba nimiam irdAif.' 
The first one, that ihe constniciton is rare, tliough correct, ii in Propertius 
an argnment in il« favour. The second one I do not comprehend. When 
Hylas went to the water-nymphs, as all Propertius' readers know, he went Co 
bis fate. The amerot the nympbi has already been referred to in 13, The 
poet'a eflecEi are spoilt by such repetitions. To pass over such inaccnrate and 
frivoloui statement! as 'certe Naiadam uocabulo nusquam naus est' (Proper- 
tius) and 'buins (TiffKiir) uocabuli quod Graecis iitpiav (silulam) saepe usur- 
pantibns non nimis eratuia esse potuit ad deas significandas' (!), he next urges 
against Lachmann's Hydrituin (which he has already commended by 'acute') 
that it is *rarum certe et ut dixi non sine nympharum uocabulo.' This is an 
argnnieiit of some weight perhaps for Greek, bat of none for Latin, as may be 
seen from the citations already made, in few of which ttymfhat is inserted. 
In 13 he accept! Aymann's conjecture '"non minor Ansoniii (ac. nymphis u. 
Il.fluuionim deistest t.^aai at DryaHn" mulatione paene nulla' because 'Amis- 
mis debet habere oppositnm nomen Graecum idqne non rarum et uix audiium 
ted Graeci* familiare.' Then the poor word DryaitH a to mean here ' Grtik 
»w!rr.deities,' and that, we are to believe, is 'non rarum et uix auditnm sed 

.y Google 


But these attempts at emendation — and they are the only variants, 
except perhaps «oti, the first hand of F, for hoc, that are worth 
recording here — are of course no use to us. In 40, whatever 
reading we may adopt, it is clear that there^ is a reference to a 
Naiad. There are three other places (already cited) in which a 
Naiad appears in the company of Hamadryades. Let us see if 
we can learn anything by comparing them. First let us take Ov. 
Met. I 69 sq.-. the Naiad there referred to is Syrinx, the daughter 
of the river god Ladon, and herself changed into a reed. A 
second passage is Slat. Silu. I 3. 59 sqq. quid te, quae mediis 
seruata penatibus arbor ] tecta per et postes liquidas emergis in 
auras | quo non sub domino saeuas passura bipennes ? | set nunc 
ignauos forsan uel lubriea Nais | uel non abruptos tibi demet 
(debet Heins.') Hamadryas annos? Why does Statius doubt 
whether the tree is in the charge of a Naiad or a Hamadryad? 
Because it grows in the villa of Flauius Vopiscus at Tibur, which 
is built on the water; e. g. vv. 2, 3 inserto geminos Aniene 
penates — sociae commercia noscere ripae. Compare the elegant 
rayth of Pan and a Naiad which he invents for the 'Arbor Atedii 
Melioris,' Silu. II 3. 

Once more the context of the passage, which is the very arx 
of the supposed confusion, where we are told of the revenge 
which Cybele took upon the Naiad with whom her favorite Attis 
was unfaithful (Ov. Fast. IV 231 Naida uulneribus succidit in 
arbore factis ; | ilia perit ; fatum Naidos arbor erat), tells us who 
the offender was; 229 sq. fallit et in Nympka Sagaritide desinit 
esse I quod fuit ; hinc poenas exigit ira deae ; that is, a nymph of 
the river Sagaris or Sangarius. What, then; is the explanation of 
the phenomenon that, when we probe the identification of the 
Naiad and the Hamadryad, we always come upon water? Let 
us seek enlightenment from Homer's famous description of the 

Naiads' home: Od. 13. 102 sqq. ah-dp tVi irparot Xt/u'mt rarui^uXXor 
(Xai'i) I ayj(6dt 8' avr^r aurpot iirrjparoy T/tpotMc, \ ipiv vufi^aB* al 
V t; 1 d 9 ( t caXtovrai ' \ if ii KfnpTipit Tt xai ifi^M^pq^s taaw | Xgiroi, irffa A' 
firtiTs TiBiaPiiramm iiiXtvvai' \ iv 8' loroi "kiStm ir<p(fiqn«, i»6a rt 
riiupai I ifiap*' u^aivoiHTW iXtitifupvpa Sao)ta J8('<rAii* | in 8' £8ar' attta- 

orra.' Descriptions of similar scenes abound in the classics. It 
will be enough to cite one from Properlius ; that of the grotto of 

I These wondrous fabric* of the Nymphs' bower, what ate they bnt the lain- 
bov of the falling streains? 'A land of itreams. Some lilce a downward 
smoke. Slow-dropping tfilt of thinnest lavm. did go,'— Tennyson, Lotos Eaten. 

.y Google 


the Nymphs who refuse admission to the thirsty Hercules, IV 9. 
33 sq. sed procul inclusas audit rJdere puellas, | lucus ubi umbroso 
feceratorbe nemus | femineae loca clausa AcasfonUsque piandos | 
— U03 precor o luci sacro quae luditis antra \ pandite defessis 
hospita fana uiris. | fontis egens erro circaque sonaniia lympkis. 
Trees in such positions might well be regarded as in the charge 
either of water-nymphs or of tree-nymphs, and their protectors 
could take rank with either. Within this region doubt is 
possible ; outside of it none, I am convinced, will be found. 

Such a region is indicated by 'Idaeo legist! poma sub antra,' 
a dell of many-fountained Ida ; and the appearance of a Naiad 
among the Hamadryads requires no further explanation. But 
the couplet in which these words occur is stitl corrupt; as is 
shown, first, by the absence of anything for legisti to refer to 
(this Baehrens tried to provide by the weak alteration legU 
iiii) ; secondly, by the expression Naica dona. This is taken to 
mean 'the gifts of the Naiads,' v\t.poma. But neither in Greek 
nor in Latin, as all those who are acquainted with the formations 
of those languages are well aware, is such a derivative possible. 
Philodemus, Anth. Pal. X 3t fin., has o»Ci it*. Kvn-pi, | Natosab' fSi;, 
i*air6n, wpit Xi/Hnu, which Is ingeniously and, as it would seem, 
correctly explained as a mock geographical adjective ('nominis 
geographi formam ludit') from KaU, the name of his inamorata; 
Anth. Pal. V 107. But in serious writing NbikAc or Naicus is no 
more possible than Dryacw or Hamadryacus} It was this con- 
sideration, in part, that led R. Unger to conjecture Na^iaxovt in 
the epigram, Nanica here and Nanida — Nanidos in Ov. Fast., 1. c. 
A Nana or Nanis, he would have, was the inamorata of Attis ; 
but as his only evidence is that Nana was the name of his mother, 
no one has accepted or is likely to accept the conjecture. It was, 
however, a step in the right direction to set the two passages side 
by side ; for they both refer to the same unfortunate nymph. 
Nor will it now be diiBcult to emend the line of Propertius. For 
Naica dona read Nai caduca} The poet makes learned and not 
inelegant allusion to the fable which is preserved by Ovid. In 

'In Orelli, Inicr. 3^<fl,Naitm, the perhapi doubtful name or a slave, would 
be • derivative of wdf. 

' The emendation is Scaliger't. But the great critic onlj' blundered into it. 
The Naiad he eiplaint as Oenone, milled bjr the corruption Parim, and 
caduca he takel ai neuter, and meaning ' cadiua.' which Heinsius actually 
conjectured. Bat who would care to gather inch fruit? To la; nothing of 
the abraptneu of Nai without tome epithet. 

.y Google 


caduca we recognize the Naiad -Hamadryad who was doomed to 
fall (o the vengeful axe of Cybele. An adjective which is applied 
sometimes to a tree (te, triste lignum te caducum \ in xlomini 
caput in mere nt is. Hor. Carm. II 13. ti sq.)i sometimes to a person 
(Virg. Aen. X 622 sq. si mora praesentis leti tempusque caduco \ 
oratur iuueni), could nowhere be more appropriate than here, 
where both are meant. The corruption was engendered by 
wrong division of the words, confusion of u and o, and an attempt 
to make something out of doca. 

But it will be said there is nothing about Cybele and Atiis in 
the context. True; but once there was. Parim, I have said, is 
corrupt. Almost every one admits this, and it must be so. If 
not, the lines would refer lo an amour between Venus and Paris ; 
and of this the rest of mythology knows nothing. The corruption 
Parim was here a very natural one. Paris has just been referred 
to in the preceding' lines : 'Tyndaris externo,' etc., and pasforem 
would be most easily so understood ; cf. Hor. Carm. I 15 Pastor 
cum traberet per freta nauibus | Idaeis Helenen perfidus hospi- 
tam. The remedies proposed, however, hitherto are ineffectual; 
bonumVa\c),Phrygem Schrader, fiaiam Haupl, suum Baeh< 
rens, nauum Burmann, all fail — some in palaeographical prob- 
ability, others by futility of sense.' The object ofall is to introduce 
an allusion to Anchisa as in [Ovid] Her. 16. 201 sq. Phryx erat 
Anchises uolucnim cui mater Amorum j gaudet in Idaeis concu- 
buisse iugis.* But the language appears to oppose a fatal objec- 
tion to thus providing Venus with a partner. Since the time of 
Haupt it has been the custom to construe the four verses as an 
example of hyperbaton or Airi iraivau. or rather of the two figures 
combined. To this, with the present reading, there are two 
serious objections, both arising from the same cause. First, here 
is a sentence with a single subject starting apparently as positive 
and then in its second half suddenly turning negative, nee minus, 
etc.: amphora coepit | institui; currente rota cur urceus extat?* 
Secondly, the sentence, as it stands, is devoid of alt proper balance, 
as will be seen, however much we simplify: 'Venus, quamuis 
Martem amans, et semper honesta fuit quamuis pastorem ama- 

' And iherefoie all omitted in the footnotes to my text of Propenius. 

' Mr. Housman (CIrie. Rct., \. c. below) lerers also lo II. 3. tio iq.; Theocr. 
I. 105, 30. 34 sq., vhich last place I have quoted in full. 

' ThU abjection is soaeht to be removed by the suggestion that ttee huhm = 
et. ai in I 3. S ; but tue minuj, which is rather ' and also,' is not equivalent to 
tt for the purposes of an oird m 

, Google 


ueriL' 1 am sure that many readers must have feh this. What, 
then, is to be done ? Another nominative must be provided for 
the awi irotnu Construction. Thus, 

ipsa Venni qnamuis comipta libidine Maitis 
nee minut in cselo (cmper honesta fnit. 

qaamnis Ida, Rhea, pastorem dical amaise 
atqje inlei pecudes accubuisie deam. 

It is true that Ovid represents the attachment of Cybele to 
Attis as platonic: 'casto uinxit amore deam." But that is not 
the account of Theocr. 20 (Incert. 2, Ahrens), 34 sqq., the full 
context of which must be quoted : ebu tym S' Sri Kinpit in' iJMpi 
ItriPan ffovrf \ xai tpuyleit irdiuvt^tr I'v upccri icaS tAh 'AddMvv | <* ipviuian 
^■Aqir* KOI (V dpviuiau' (■Xavtrci'/ | Etivfuiw ii tic ^v,' ov ^oumSXoc,' Srrt 
ZtXam I /SatiKoXt'otra tpiXijatr, dir' OiXufiiru Si fioXotira | Xd^pioi' Ac rdvot 
^\St Kai tit 6iii naM nidn^. | (al ri, Pia, xXaiiit ri* (SovwJXoK ouX' ^ 
cai rv, | i Kporiia Sia irsifid ^iirofuii' Spnt (TrXay;^i)c/ With which 

agrees Diodorus Siculus in the collection of tradition. 111 58, 59; 
also later writers: LactanL I 17; Arnobius, adu. nat. 4. 35; Fir- 
micus Matemus, de errore prof, religion. 3. i ; Tert. ad. nat. I 
149. It is clear that both accounts were current, as indeed was 
natural, and a writer might take whichever suited his purpose. 

We have now a perfectly legitimate example of the figure in 
question: 'ipsa Venus, quamuis amans Martem, nee minus Rhea 
honesta futt quamuis pastori accubperit': and of the same type, 
though more difficult, as Val. Fl. V 315 sq. dona dehinc Bacchi 
casusque ut firmet in omnes | rapta Ceres. Of the hyperbaton 
(properly so called) in XAea there are many examples in Latin 
poets; see e. g. Monro's collection on Lucr. Ill 843, much 
enlarged by Mr. Housman (Journal of Philology, XVIII, pp. 6 
sqq.) and capable of much further extension, e. g. by Lucan, III 
^9i V 387 qua, sibi ne ferri ius ullum, Caesar, abesset, | Ausonias 
uoluit gladiis miscere secures ; ib. 680, 800, VII 686 sq., VIII 341 
sq. quern captos ducere reges ] uidit ab Hyrcanis, Indoque a 
litore, siluis. Horace, Epod. 6. 15 sq. an — inultus ut, flebo, 
puer; perhaps even 11. 7 heu ! me, per urbem, nam pudet tanti 
mail, I febula quanta fui, unless the ungrammatical heu me is a 
corruption of eheu, which is, on the whole, more probable. 
Manilius, IV 535 se quisque, et uiuit, et effert. In Propertius 
too there is another example which the copyists have removed : 

' So apparently also Martial, VIII 46. 

.y Google 


Ill 19. 19 sq. quidue Clytaemnestrae propter quam tola Mycenis | 
intamis, stupnim, stat Pelopca domus {siupro MSS, but Clytaem- 
nestrae, which haa no construction, must be joined with siuprutn, 
as in IV 7. 57'). In very few of the instances, however, is the 
sense really obscure ; nor is it so here. The course of the cor- 
ruption was probably this. Rhea became Rheam, which might 
happen in many ways. The stroke which denotes a nasal might 
be accidentally added, or Rhea mechanically assimilated to the 
next word pasiorem ; or, again, the copyist, not understanding 
the construction or dissatisfied with the quantity {Rhea), might 
put it in the same case as deam. All these changes might be 
illustrated from actual cases; but I spare the reader. Rheam, 
again, has practically four letters, in common with Parim (for e 
and i are everlastingly confused) ; it is comparatively a rare word, 
and the latter a common one, and one, as we have seen, likely to 
suggest itself here. 

A word about the scene and the other personages of the 
context. The scene is Mount Ida; and Cybele is the Idaea 
mater, her official title — Cicero, Livy, Lucretius, Virgil, Ovid. 
In this regard the repetition Ida — Idaeo appears intentional. 
The company, again, consists of Nymphs, Sileni and Bacchus. 
Now, the cult and myths of Cybele are closely connected with 
the Bacchic ones ; see Roscher's lexicon, s. v. Dionysos, pp. 1085 
sqq., and Kybele, pp. 1658 sq. But no suck connexion -appears 
between ihose of Dionysos awrf Aphrodite. 

Lastly, it is not only clearly effective, but also more in the 
Propertian manner to illustrate by different individuals than by 
different actions of the same individual ; and in the introduction 
of Cybele we have a climax. You ought not to expect constancy 
in a woman. Heroines are frail (31 sq.), goddesses are frail (33 
sq.), the great mother of the gods is frail (35-40). The length of 
the last reference is now intelligible. The feble was less trite 
than Helen's infidelity and the loves of Mars and Venus ('toto 
notissima caelo'J, and its subject more venerable.' 

'There i« another indication that j/w/rn is coinipl. Wherever iH/dmu and 
infamart occur in Properlius, they are uted without any »uch addition, ai the 
idea was for Propertlut contained in the word. Thui I l6. 9, II 34. 7, til II. 
33 Inppiter infamat seqne suamque domum. 

* Mr. Hoasman, in a review of mj' text of Properliai published since this 
article was wriuen, the care and couTlety of which I take this opportunity of 
acknowledging, says (Class. Review, October, 1S95, p. 359) that I must gire 
some reason why I suppose the person meant is Rhea, whose name is not in 

, Google 


To sum up the general results of this inquiry. Apart from 
passages obviously corrupt, the Greek and Latin literatures' 
afford no evidence of any confusion in the use of the names of 
the different kinds of Nymphs: Dryads, Hamadryads, Naiads. 
The three are the names — the Dryads, of wood and woodland in 
general ; the Hamadryads, of particular trees whose existence they 
are often supposed to share ; the Naiads, of running water, espe- 
cially at its source. Bui the trees which grow at such a place 
(possibly at other points in the stream) and from the water are 

(he MSS, rather than Venni, whoM name it. This I trust I have done. He 
cODtinaes; "and it muit be a strong one, if it is to justif; a ditlocated order of 
word* which has do parallel in Propertius for violence, unless you accept Dr. 
Poitgate's emendation of III xix, ig sq." As Mi.Housman nsei his collection 
of eunples (already referred to) Co defend the displacement proposed by him 
in t I. 33 tunc ego crediderim, <t manes et lidera, nobis | posse Cylinaeis 
dncere carminibus, he thus make* the question entirely one of degree. What 
amount of diiplacement would be too violent for Propertint, it appears arbi- 
trary to decide. It is cle»r that the poet who wrote, e. g.. *et sublet captos 
anna tedere duces' for 'captos supter' (III 4. iB) did not stick at trifles in the 
matter of order, while poets who in general write more simply than Piopenias 
baie dislocations quite as violent ; e, g. Catullus 66 (65). iS oon, ita me diui, 
nera gemunt, iueriot. Aa indicated above, the real question appears to be 
whether a di(loc»t ion is obscure: whether it it 'violent' appears to be le» 

'I say HUratttnt because, ai B. Schmidt, in a valuable monograph, Dot 
VeUulebtn J. NtugrucHlckm u. d. HtlUmlehtn AlUrlhum (1871, Theil l). has 
pointed out, modem Greek shows that at some period which we cannot fix a 
transference in the use of certain nymph-names took place in the popular 
langaage. Nipaidt, which is said to be 'SJipifiM^, is now u«ed of nymphi in 
gtntrat. The passage of meaning from lea-nytnfht to ■a/altr.nytnphs is not a 
difficult one, and modem Greek ases vtp& (01 waltr. There is perhaps a step 
taken in this shifting in Eur. Ion, toSt sqq., where we read that the fifty 
daughter* of Nereas dance in the rivers' eddies aa well as in the sea: al Hard 
tivrov I aiMJuv rt irora/iuv | iivat j^/ittaj/irvai. Five centuries later Zenobius, 
a contemporary of Hadrian, certainly appears to say that Hylas was carried 
off by NertiJt, Cent. VI 31 ; but it seems more than probable that we should 
restore K/j^viVkn' (cf. Theocr. i. 33) with Valckenaer, and otherwise classical 
antiquity does not vary from the usual conception. The generallsalion of 
water-nymphs to nympht in gcntral would be lalei still. The modem Greek 
name for maifr-^rilti, which Schmidt quotes in the forms of &iiir/iiaif. i^li/iaif, 
Apifn-aic, apparently cornea from Spv/ii;, the nearest parallel being ipv/iiitf 
riy^at, mentioned by Cramer, Aoecd. Oxon. I, p. 395. It will be seen that 
these words famish no direct evidence for the confusions which we have been 
considering. They only prove the possibility of their occurrence, which I 
should be the last to deny. 

.y Google 


under the charge of Nymphs who may be regarded either as 
Naiads or as Hamadryads, and where a Naiad is meotioned 
among the Hamadryads, such a tree-nymph' is meant. 

And now I daie say some sated and ungrateful reader will 
hark back and say: 'The place where Hylas disappeared was 
just the place where, as you assert, these ambiguous nymphs 
abode. What can it matter, then, how the poet names them 7 
Tree-nymphs, spring -nymphs and water-nymphs, it's all the same.' 
I shall not add to the tedium of my imaginary friend by exposing 
the fallacies which such an argument conceals. I will simply ask 
him first to consider whether there are two modes of death more 
sharply distinguished in the human consciousness than hanging 
and drowning; next I will beg him to read the following lines of 
Nonnos, in which Pentbeus threatens that he will send some of 
the Bacchantes to join the Hamadryads and others to join the 
Naiads: XLIV 143 sqq. ^ iVt e^% | 'imoftm dicjMun* atxurliayTK 
tWuXoic j Ni](8a[ Advuht irara/iqi crt fu'farc Ntifi^iui | fXiciu* AdpudAor 
At yiprnt lH^atwo Kifoipwr | i&Xaif 'Aipvaitiraiv Sii^vyat arri Avaiov; 

and last of all to turn to the words by which Propertius seeks to 
touch our feelings at the approaching fate of Hylas : 'a dolor, ibat 

Hylas, Hal- ,' and then say with what kind of a fate or with 

which Nymphs' names he thinks the blank should be filled. 


<We can now apprehend the Irue lignifionce of tnch namei ii Bdriia, 
Apoltodorui, III to. 4, a Nai(, and HtX/3, ib. II S- 4. refeTied to ■■ a Naif in a 
fragment of Pindar, 156 Bergk: 5v MnAjoj'Ojof fBpt^ Satint dimirnf lci?i^v6r. 
instances I take from G. F. Schoemann'a learned dissertation. De njinphis 
Meliis gigantibus et Erinysin Tbeogoniae Hesiodeae (Greifiwald, 1845). In 
themselves, of course, these names would only proTC the nataral connexion of 
water and vegetable giowih, such as is indicated by 'I.ii^i;. 'P6itia, names of 
the 'QKcav'iic( t^Qfcaedt. as we know, is the parent of the rivers) in Het. Theog. 
349> 3S1. discussed by Schoemann in another dissertation, De Oceanidam et 
Nereidum catalt^is Hesiodeis iGreifswald, 1843). 

.y Google 


The following noies present a consideration of some of the 
features of the vocabulary of the Dialogus. The Lex. Tac 
furnishes the basis for complete comparisons so far as it is 
finished, but it is not possible to do this at present in the case of 
most authors. At whatever time the Dialogus was written, its 
vocabulary was a part of the vocabulary of the day, and as such 
was the result of antecedent conditions. Though the writer may 
not have been consciously a debtor to any preceding writer but 
Cicero, there are expressions used by him which can be found in. 
other works whose style widely differs from that of the Dialogus. 
Without implying anything as to authorship, we shall for the sake 
of convenience speak of the writer of the Dialogus and of Tacitus, 
in comparing some features in the style of the Dialogus and 
the historical works of Tacitus. Though the language has a 
bearing on the question of authorship, we shall present parallels 
between the Dialogus and other works without implying that 
they are indicative of any connection between the writers. In 
the same way divergences from the usage of Tacitus will be 
presented simply as differences, without reference to the question 
whether Tacitus did or did not write the Dialogus. The question 
of the limitations of imitation or reminiscence on the one band, 
and of development and of differences on the other, will not be 
discussed, but parallels will be presented as parallels and difiier- 
eoces simply as differences. Besides the presentation of gram- 
matical features, we will discuss some readings and a few other 
points which come up in connection with the Dialogus. 

I, 7. tam magnae = tantae. There are but few examples of 
this usage outside of Seneca, who has the expression more than 
two dozen times, e. g. Dial. 6, 24, 3 'in tam magna feminarum 
turba'; N. Q. 3, 12, 3 'si rerum naturae tam magna portio'; Ep. 
21, 4 'inter Um magna nomina.' 

t, 13. admodum iuvenis. In addition to the passages usually 
quoted of the use of these words may be given Livy 29, 20, 3, 

.y Google 

T'^Vrring m acpio : ' riuannnr ■ii v^rnn znne anus ' a oM t til Eg tD 
»S. :^ 7- 39, +7, r, rwerrrng aa Dcmetrrna. w&o was abom 35, 

r. f'. fto-^ju^ ir.xh. piurai precicaiei rfaongh rare in most 
it!s<«ii!3t ^r»e-vf.xer3. ia xund cwxe in Sail oat and seems 2 
fcv.rje ^pr'i33ir,a cf Livv. e^jeca-lT when he uses 'pro se 
'^'lis'-jiie.' See iJraeger. H. 3. r. [71. 

(, i'. anirni et Ln^jenii. tw:ce in die Dialcgna and once io 
Tacitos, is 3 commca coilocaricp in Cicor: and occnrs a few times 
in Livy, e.j, 9, 17, lor 22, 29, 9: 25, 37. 2: 54, 18, 3; 38.50. 12; 

I, i& iadetn aunc aumeria isdemque cadonibos pciaequar, 
t«rvAto ofdinc dispuratiouia. Ti:is staiement seems mcdelled not ufK-jii Cic de Orat. Ill 4. 16 nos eoini qui ipai sennooi non 
interfuissrmus et quibua C- Ccna antummodo locoa (= numeros) 
m: vmcenci^s (= raiiooea) huius di^p'jtatioais cradidissct,' but also 
N. D. 3, 4, f o ' mandavi enim memoriae doq nomemm solum, 
»ed etiam ordinem argumeaionim tuorum.' C£ Pliny, Ep. i, i, 
f ' lervaio temporia ordine.' 

3, 6. The plural of ulerqiu is rarely foond in QnintiliaD and 
Pliny the Younger, The former has it 5, 10, 43 and 12, 1, 22; 
the latter, Ep, Trai. 19, 2 and Pan. 72 utrisque ; Pan. 5 utronim- 
que. C^ Suetonius, p. 31 1 R. ' uterqae an utriquc' 

3, 7. adseclabar. A good illustration of the use of this word 
is Pliny, Ep. 3, 14, 10 "narrabat ille (Quint.) 'adsectabarDomitium 

3, t6. Umquatn . . . habiturus. The passages dted from Taci- 
tus in moat inalances have the perfect participle instead of the 
fiiltirc. This is explained by the omission of the subj. esset, 
hUIioukIi this is not paralleled by Agr. 34, 13 'saepe ex eo audivi 
I . . dcbcllari obtinerique Hiberniam posse ; idque . . . profuturum, 
si < . . lullerctur. 

3, 13. dimissB priore cura novae cogitationi incumbam. Cura 
hiiH ihc tHiiic ambiguity of meaning as the word 'work' and may 
mcun ri(li?r the composing or the composiiioD. The first meaning 
In lIKmlriMctl by Pliny, Ep. 3, 5, 14 'in itinere quasi solutus ceteris 
ruriN luiic iini VHcnbat.' In the Dial, the word indicates the com- 
IKKiilion to corrcspnnd to cogilatio, which = consilium. Instances 
nf thin MV not rare in other writers. Cic. ad Fam. 10, 3, 3 
'hu-timl)i> in earn curam et coijitationem'; ad Atl. 12, 35 'rogo 
, . , til hniic ciiKitntionein loto pectorc amplectare.' See also ad 

.y Google 


Att. 4, 2, 6; 8, 15A, I ; 10, 5, i ; 10, 16. 4; ad Fam. 12, 13. i ; 
13, 41, 3. Livy 6, 35, I ; 40, 3i, 2; 36, 7, i ' interrogatus semen- 
tiam in universi belli cogitation em.' Sen. Dial. 10,9, i 'cogita- 
tiooes suas in longum ordinant.' Suet. Nero 47 'cogitatione in 
postenim diem dilata.' Justinus 38, i, 3 'dum in his cogitatio- 
nibus versatur.' 

3, 16. modo — nunc for modo — mode occurs twice in Tacitus, 
H. 3, 51 ; 3, 85. These indicate different phases of one action, 
while the Dialogus passage, 'modo circa Medeam, ecce mine 
circa Thyestem consumas,' calls attention to two distinct actions 
at different periods of time. Illustrations of each usage are not 
wanting in both prose and poetry. Ovid, Met. 8, 390 'modo 
proculcat . . . nunc metit'; 8, 506; 9, 766; 10, 123; 11, 64; 13, 
933; Stat. Theb. 9, 773 (modo, nunc, nunc}; 13, 389; Sil. Ital. 7, 
590 ; 12, 642 ; 16, 504, When the words are used to contrast the 
past and the present they generally have different verbs, e. g. 
Ovid, Met. 1, 399 'modo carpsere . . . nunc ponunt'; 15, 769 
'modo vulneret . . . nunc confundant'; Stat. Theb. 4, 817 'modo 
virens . . . nunc sordet ' ; 1 1 , 40 ' modo scandebant . . . nunc defen- 
dunt'; Curt. 4, 14, 21 ; Petron. 46 'modo circumferebat . . . nunc 
extendit.' In some instances no verb is expressed in either part, 
e. g. Ovid, Met. 13, 483 'o modo regia coniunx . . . nunc etiam 
praedae mala sors'; Sen. Rhet. Contr, 9, 36, 10 'mode... 
patrem, nunc pericl i tan tern ' ; Curt. 10, 7, 3 'consors modo, nunc 
solus heres.' In some cases the verb is expressed in but one part, 
as in the Dialogus passage, e.g. Ovid, Met. 11, 343 'modo tu 
volucris . . . nunc gravis arbor eras'; Ars Am. i, 88 'modo 
patronus, nunc cupit esse cliens'; Martial 6, 32, 3 'moechum 
modo, nunc mariium facis.' 

5, 5. Spitta De Tac. in componendis enuntiatis ratione, p. 143, 
says: 'at numquam apud Taciturn et — et negaiionem sequitur 
quod num omnino latine dicatur valde dubium est.' C. 5, 5 'quis 
eniro nescit neminem mihi coniunctiorem esse et usu amicitiae et 
assiduitate contubernii' and 34, 11 'nemo . . . dicit, quominus et 
iudex et adversarius' are only apparent exceptions, for while 
nemo is negative in form, it is used with positive content. The 
statement should perhaps be taken as referring only to three 
co-ordinate terms. Cf. Sen. Dial. 6, 19, 4 'nee carcerem, nee 
flumina . . . nee tribunalia et reos et . . . tyrannos'; Ep. 99, 9 'nil 
non lubricum et fallax et . . . mobilius'; de Benef. 3, 31, 5 'non, 
quicquid potuero, et faciam et reddam, et . . . sequar, et . . . 

^d by Google 


cupiam'; N. Q. i, 5, 6 'non el aqua nipta fistula sparsa et remo 
excussa...'; Dial. 18, 10 'oon ilia levis et fugax et subinde 
fugieoda'; 113, 15 'nulli dod et color proprius est et figuia sua 
et magnitudo'; 117, 15 'quominus et sapientia bonum sit et 
habere aapientiam ' ; Cic. ad Att. 2, 17, i 'ne et opera et oleum'; 
ad Fam. 11, 38, 4 'nisi et %'ita et spes.' (See note ad C 23, 20.) 

5, 9. quisquis alius, alius following a relative pronoun is 
found nine times in the Dialogus and thirty times in Tacitus, 
once in inverse order — Ann. 14, 33 'aliudve quod.' In Livy 
alius follows in most cases. Out of thirty-nine instances noticed 
in Seneca, aliud precedes in but four, e. g. de Bene£ 6, 19, i ' aliud 
quoddam.' Gellius uses the words very freely, but in the forty* 
five instances noticed he does not seem to have any preference as 
to arTanf;ement. 

5, to. Gloria is used throughout the Dialogus of literary fame 
and also in Ann. 12, sS. There does not seem to have been any 
disinclination to use the word with this meaning whenever an 
occasion presented itself. C£ Sail. Cat. 1,3; 3, 2 ; Verg. G. 4, 6 ; 
Propcrtius 5, 10, 3; Martial i, 25, 8; 5, ro, 12; 10. 64, 3; 10, 
103. 3; Pl'ny. Ep- I. '6.6; 2, 3, 8; 3, 9, 8; 3, 21,6; 5, 17, 5; 6, 
8. 6 ; 7, 9, 10 ; Sil. Ital. 4, 527 ; 9. 343. 

5, 13. apud nos. Vos is objected to on the ground that it 
would include the author. If so in this passage, then consistently 
so throughout the Dialogus where the reference is a general one, 
c. g> 16, 5 et Messalla 'aperiam' inquit ' cogiiationes meas, si illud 
a vobis ante impetravero, ut vos quoque sermonem hunc nostrum 
adiuvetis.' The inclusion of the writer at any point where vos is 
used is to violate the spirit in which the author gives his ex parte 
testimony as to the dialogue by representing the speakers as not 
at all conscious of bis presence at any point in the conversatiorL 

6. 8. orbos et locupletes et potentes. Cf. Sen. de Benef. 4, 3, 
3 ' locupletes et potentes et reges aliena ope non indigentes.' 

6, II. Draeger, H. S. II, p. 365, §431, is wrong in confining 
the use of volupias with the infinitive in prose to the Dialogus. 
Cf. Sen. de BeneL 4, 13, 2 'nobis voluptas est dare beneficia vel 
taboriosa'; 7, 2. 3 'ilia est voluptas et homine et viro digna non 
implere corpus . . .'; Ep. 90, 40 'inventum monstrare alteri 
voluptas erat.' 

6, 1 1, homines veteres et senes. Cf. Aelius Lampridius (Scrip. 
HisL Aug. 18) 16, 3 'illi consueiudo, ut si de iure aut de negotiis 
traciaret, solos doctos et disertos adhlberet, si vero de re militari, 
militares veteres et senes bene meritos et locorum peritos.' 



6, 34. lenocinatur voluptati. With the meaning 'adds to' the 
verb is used also G. 43. No distinction can be made between the 
meaning in the Dialogus passage and Sen. Contr. I i, 18 'lenoci- 
natur, inquam, gloriae meae, ut videar patrera etiam prohibitus 

6, 25. extemporalis. This word seems to occur but twice in 
preceding writers: Sen. Rhet. Contr. VII, Intr. 2 'e. facultas'; 
Petronius 6 'ab extemporah declamatlone ' (quoted by Mayor ad 
Jov. I, 16). 

6. 26. quamquam quae [alia] diu seruntur atque elaborantur 
grata, gratiora tamen quae sua sponte nascuntur. The restora- 
tion oi quae SKX^RS correct, though the reading quaedam (Bennett) 
without grata restores the contrast, and by the dropping oi quae 
after quamquam leaves the letters -dam, out of which were differ- 
entiated both diu and aiia by different scribes. 

7. 4. pro mediocritate huius quaotulaecumque in dicendo 
facultatis. These words of Aper seem modelled after the words 
of Crassus, Cic. de Orat. i, 25, 117 'illam ipsam, quamcumque 
adsequi potuerit, in dicendo mediocritatem.' 

7, 10. in alzw oritur. The MSS have alio and editors have 
put forth more than a dozen conjectures in its stead. The evident . 
contrast is between oratorical power and the lack of it. The 
following illustrations are of men 'quo sordidius et abiectius nati 
sunt . . . eo clariora et ad demonstrandam oratoriae eloquentiae 
utilitatem inlustriora exempla sunt.' To the long number of 
conjectures we add 'in oratoria oritur,' the larger part of the 
noun having fallen out before the verb of similar form. See 
Quint. 2, 14. 

7, 13. iuvenes vacuos et adulescenies. MSS iuvenes el adu- 
lescentes. most editors vacuos et aduUscentes. For a statement 
similar to the common reading see Sen. Ep. 20, 2 'qui iuvenum et 
otiosorum aures disputatione varia aut volubili detinent.' 

8, It. sordidius et abiectius. The same collocation occurs 
Tac. 13, 46, 16, but with the words in reverse order. The same 
is true of tueri et defendere D, 7, 8 : G. 14, 4 ; robur ac vires D. 
10, 22: Hist. I, 87; 2, 11; gloria, honor D. 12, 14: G. 5. 5; 
severitas ac disciplina D. 28, it: G. 25. 7 ; probitas et modestia 
D.39,7; 40,8: G.36,4; labor et meditatio D. 30, 9: A. 4, 61. 
This difference of arrangement is not without interest, since the 
reversed order of words in the Dialogus may be considered as 
evidence of the direct indebtedness of the author to Cicero. C. 

.y Google 

'. tri *..^a. ' " >= 3-x, £a. ti :- iCer rarnmt =ns pxasgc 
Vv.i 'jVj:!' P'.sr £4. ;. 2C. J 1. r^; 4, aac Tjer. r. 175; 
> arJt iirr. 'u- ^i A.31. jCn;. z^ =. ^ Tat : -: ii r . ; . a'^fcef»- 
JfTT « j-jiiu; a i"- pa«f=gqg n TitL. "'iinc J- i r* Sac CU. 
i iivwiiair.-jt aiiTiarng Tigicacic Aol V"— r~ 5. ^ 

T'-Jt -,vr.-;arac-'^ a";; s immr il. ^ r? am .Via. X\" 67, 

»-:«■! * j^ ^-17 j^ :-^ : ^ a= L2 set r'j:_4. j*. 4: N. 
^ ♦ ;-, I ir:-)., Q,-".rc :^ ■^ 2 i, i nn.' : ?^;=t. Ep^ ,1, 12, 
7 >. ri.'i -> :4.3- 

<■«» ;., ,i.-«f C. ^s.j-sjk. CL P-^ry E:, 3. > :S '= »— >-^ j pnod- 

V 2, a>r./i •*, 21. I := 1' -<-«^j— Petecscc ac Quait, 10. 2, 
f ', t'^frt U^t TH A 'JKd f'.r ^psid jt speaki^ at an aaihor's whole 
w/fit* 'if ((«-«aI charact-rnstks, cct «" a particvlar passage or a 
(/4ti.':'.:it fjjmptM.-.-.tjo. T'ae bro^ discicction betveen ibe two 
(ff'-ff'A.t.'/r,* i« thu a/W is pencnai and is dsmI with the names 
til Aii\fiT% whrm (Ate has their works aod not tbeir [»cisoiis in 
Hijft/I, In early I^tin, in was regularly used when the reference 
W;» I't tUf. aulhor'i works. However, in late Latin at encroached 
on afiud, and Servius and other writers regularly use in where 
curty writTi would have used afruJ. The distinction drawn 
iiplwrn in find aputi does not hold at all for this period. When 
iti In iiard with the name of an author in the earlier period it does 
iml (iJKfr from aputi with respect to general or particular refer- 
friip, Iml the author is considered with respect to his style or 
nrdihillty. So conaidered, the author is depersonalized and 

.y Google 


takes the impersonal prepositioa in. See Scbmatz, Aniibarbarus, 
s. V. in. 

The statement 3t, i 'equidem fatebor vobis simpliciter me in 
quibusdam andquorum vix risum, in quibusdain auteni vix som- 
num tenere. Nee unum de populo . . .' is an evident adaptadon 
of a statement of Cicero, Brutus 85, 293 'ita laudavisti quosdam 
oiatores, ut imperitos posses in errorem inducere. equidem in 
quibusdam risum vix tenebam quum Attico Lysiae Catonem 
comparabas.' Preceded and followed as quUmsdam is by per- 
sonal nouns, it seems that it also must be personal. This would 
decide the gender of guiiusdam in the Dial<^us passage, even if 
the following unum did not point to a preceding personal word. 
The in, however, has a meaning entirely different from in used in 
quotations. It is here used 'with reference to,' depending on 
ritum tenere, as in Cic. in Vatin. 8, 20 ' in qua tua cogitatione nos 
. . . vix dolorem ferehamus, illi autcm . . . vix risum tenebant' 

9, 32. mansurum. The first instance of the use of this word 
as an adjective seems to be Verg. Aen. 3, 86 'mansuram urbem.' 
It is found a few times in Ovid, e. g. Met- 5, 227 'mansura moni- 
menta,' and Seneca, e. g. Dial, i, 6, s ; 3, 20, 2 'firmo mansu- 
roque'; de Benef. i, 11, i ; i, 12, i ; N. Q. 2, 50, 3. Tacitus has 
wx examples, and it i& the only future participle which is freely 
used by him as an adjective. See Helm, Quaest. SynL, p. 19 f. 

9, 36. indulgenliam principis mereri. The frequent occurrence 
of induigeniia in the epistles of Pliny to Trajan (22 times), as 
well as the frequent use of indulgeo, shows that the word was 
common in the courtly phTaseology of the day. For mereri = 
effnsequiset Peterson ad Quint. 10, i, 72. 

9, 28. genium propitiare. For a similar expression see Petro- 
nius 74 'genium meum propitiuro habeam.' 

9, yx Another good example of ex adding an intellectual 
element to the original meaning is Fronto, p. 146 N. 'hoc Jndicat 
loqui te quam eloqui malle.' Cf. Sen. Ep. 123, 17 'haec discenda, 
immo ediscenda sunt.' Cf. Gellius i, 15, 18. 

ID, 5. nedum ut. To the examples given by Draeger, H. S. 
II 693, add Sen. Dial. 2, 8, 3 ; 10, 7, 4. 

10, 14. vester = tuus. A good example of this is Pliny, Ep. 
Trai. 3, I 'utprimum me, domine, indulgentia vestra promovit.' 
iua indulgentia is used 17 times. 

10. 32. robur ac vires. Livy has the same arrangement 21, 
40, 8; 25, 21, 7; 42, II, 6. In reverse order 42, 51, 4, as in Tac. 
H. 1,87; 2, II. 

.y Google 


ignes considercnt,' and Ann. i, 54 ' profana simul et sacra . . . solo 
aequantur,' the meaning of the verbs precludes tacra loca as 
subject. Ann. i, 79 'sacra et lucos et aras patriis amnibus 
dicaverint' seems but a variation of the siatement of Pliny, N. H. 
3, 140 Mucosque et aras et sacra habemus,' where the context 
decides the meaning of sacra. 

15, 1. Vetera tantum et andqua. This pleonastic collocation, 
though not found in Quintilian, is found in Ded. 314, p. 335, 14 
'vetus illaet antiqua.' A similar combination o£ vefus and prucus 
was current in the days of Cicero; Tim, 11, 38 'veteribus et 
priscis, ut aiunt, viris.' 

15, 15. Sacerdos iste Nicetes. Though it is impossible to 
decide the question, it is not improbable that the elder and the 
younger Nicetes may have been distinguished by the same char- 
acteristic delivery. At the close of William Pitt's first speech in 
Parliament, Burke remarked : " It is not a chip of the old block ; 
it b the old block itself (Macaulay, ' WiUiam Pitt '). 

16, 33. utriquc superstites essent. The general statement is 
(hat Demosthenes and Hyperides flourished (Jiondsse) in the 
times of Philip and Alexander: 'ita tamen ut utrique superstites 
essent.' Aper's intention was to give in general terms the period 
when the men flourished, and to prevent a too dose limitation he 
adds that they survived both. 

This statement is closely connected with the following : ' ex quo 
apparet non multo plures quam CCCC annos inter nostram et 
Demosthenis aetatem.' From the period of the greatest activity 
of Demosthenes dosed by the De Corona (330 B. C.) it was a 
little over 400 years to the time of the dialogue. Had the writer 
wished to reckon from the death of Demosthenes, he could have 
said mcrUm more easily than aelalem, and need not have uselessly 
called attention to the period when the men flourished. Even 
counting from the death of Demosthenes, nearly 100 years, one- 
fourth of the whole number, is altogether too long a period to be 
designated by 'non multo plures.' 

In the case of numerals, the MSS readings in the Dialogus are 
not at all reliable. The wealth of Marcellus and Vibius (8, 5), 
the present number, the magnus annus (16, 31}, the years of the 
reign of Augustus (17, 10), the years of Vespasian (17, 14), the 
time since the death of Cicero (17, 15), the number of the spetehes 
of Cicero in Verrem (20, 3), the ages given (34, 32-33} involving 
two chronol<^cal errors, are either incorrect or open to discussion. 

.y Google 


Tres el viginii {\T , ii)and cmium et viginiHt^, 14) are correct. 
Qvingejita (9, 25) and centum (25, 4) in all probability retain the 
value originally expressed by a single letter. The time since the 
age of Nestor and Uiixes (16, 19) represents in round numbers 
the computations of antiquity. Uttum ei viginti (21, 5), the 
number of the speeches of Calvus, can neither be verified nor 
refuted by comparisons with the statement of any other author on 
the same subject. From this it will be seen that the chances in 
any doubtful passage are against the correctness of any definite 
numerical statement in the MSS.' 

With this in mind it is not at all necessary to believe that there 
is anything in the MS reading (17, 14) 'sextam iam . . .sutio- 
nem ' which makes it any more probable than any other reading 
which can bC' satisfactorily defended as a statement of fact. The 
MS reading gives a succession of cardinal numbers followed by 
an ordinal. This is only one year, not six, and one, not six, 
should be added to the preceding numbers. That sextam is 
introduced where a cardinal is demanded is sufficient to cast 
doubt on the correttness of the reading. The source of the error 
was, we believe, twofold— a wrong transcription and the introduc- 
tion of a gloss. With the reading VI-VII ox VIIIIAMTAM 
(sc annoi) . . . STA TIONIS, the unusual meaning to be given 
to staHonis would call out the gloss principaius. The change of 

V/~ VII or VIII with the letters following, to sextam was easy, 
carrying itaiionU into the accusative, thereby making room for 
the gloss principatus. Both of these methods find place in the 
explanation of the text of the Dialogus. One is applied 30, 3 to 
explain the change of VIINVERREM to quingue in Verrem. 
The second is of frequent application ; see Gudeman ad 10, 25 ; 
15,4; 17, 26; 29,8; 30,5; 34.21; 35, I. 

17, 15. centum et viginti anni ah interitu Ciceronis in hunc diem 
cotliguntur, unius hominis aetas. The same statement occurs 
again 24, 14. These statements, c. 37, 7 'cum maxime a Muciano 
contrahuntur,' and the one referring to Vespasian (17, 14) are 
the only ones which have any special bearing on the date of the 

> The difficulljr *eem» 10 htve triien in dealing with tbe Roman numeralt. 
whose proper Irinicriplian, in the case of numbers not well known, depended 
on > clearly diicriminaiing power of the eye. As a good illustration of (be 
failure 10 tranicribe properl)', tee the MS itatement of the number ot years 
in the magma imhwi, C. 16, 31; Serr. >d Verg. A. 1.369; 3.384. See alto 
Cril. A p. to Pliny, N. H., pauim. 

.y Google 

■f -.-ii-T^ «3s ail lii-e. 13C 7«ar5 

ri. -^ -i li =i:.,3re3 "iat .le »=a r:^ :ff3a- As Hucanus s 
m"mr;.-nrrt a :.-..« —. : a m : jr s:cra=ai;.e annnsoDii -fiar ie 
-I'-rt IT .-i;^ ,<-r..-e ne -cuKceat = :•:'■]£ j^ -»aa ■r:tn=i. Tie 
liti? ii Se iKai : '.l -.-nt-a :an — -^ :e imtajnt »:inin -iiu;!* 
■irrir-r ;,'C:"5. ~;ai ?!.=v 15^ -"■^'^ r:nit:')SMi ranwiiy :s aoi-wB 

iit-r be r^;:; ;J .'J^m. 'iI-mCh^s ioan; iil.-sanc^s or oie ::=:« 
jr>»rTT n ie i.- i: iKaeiai. ne: 3=n -^^mc xus aa-'± be«a 
■»rrten inr k iiirrr -.eM:n? ne icoicaii'ii t T^nw Ji ~ A, D, 
In -he ^ -3ct " 2. ?^:3V" 4&v^ u T"nia-- tn sesiea ^nani ijc :r-ii.s;- 
sae -^.tesrsrj ■3;>r~.cans z. it, z:z. in Je lua joiim] .rciisii .jm 
•lA 7 nil mnerM.-.r oeracrrr^sii. m junc ien aowaenie i3a-' 
T.T? ■^r.r* wm a 'aiia ■•«^^ ti :e innnneti oa ^-er* »w:r^ purred 
v r'ori *he "m*^ of :ae ieaicani:iL aia iie zt^reuieic uco; Msi::;- 
arn:* v-mirij •-. -lear :iie inn ^' die went xnas X ■^i^aa'c'us KJt 
MKu»niii -i-tr. n — A- Z. 

The w-'.ta; pr.'T\i iraio ■•iuci A=«-* arynneiTC reap, die ecurrei- 
acrn ■-.I :he re^aa :;«35 br-;i:i:it :li mer^j xr :i» pcrpcws (rf 

Tl-.e arfiT.i-nr 5-,c -ie *i;iCeaoeor riie Rimaii i:ei:« [bar lao 
^Mlst.t'jteri rhe ^.s;;i oi bsszaa '^e is based zpca two sC2re=:ec;s: 
Tr*t>. Pcrt'.. V.ta C.a;^ 2 ' Docriaainu jmibe: rud c c nn B cenmtn ei 
v:^n:i ar.nos hwr.iai ad T-.Temdun daxos...': Serr. ad Verg. 
A<Ti. *, (-S,! "Tr:b'a h:imaaa via cnc:i:;<mr, oamra cui ultra 
cen?>im et v.^ir.ti ar.coa concesdcm dcc est: ^o . . . fonuoa.' 
Th<* ACatemer.t of Treb. Poll, coataics a staiement re fer ring to 
iA'inf^ which indicates that ihe limits stated had been computed 
by Christians, if >o the fan did not form a part of Pagan belief 
Th^it this was the case is sboan by Censorious de D. N. 17, 3-4, 
who menli'ins this as one of five different views. Scrvius slates 
that 120 years are the limit naJura, aitd thai 90 years or three 
revolution! of Saturn 'exitiuin creant, nbi forte aliarutn stellanim 
benit^nitag etiam lertium eius superet cursum.' The Schol. Dan. 
a(\ Aen. 4, 696 does not seem to be aware of the distinction drawn 
by Sf-rviuH, nor does Servius himself seem to be committed to 
tio yearn to the exclusion of other periods: ad Aen. 6, 325 
'centum autem annos ideo dicit, quia hi sunt legttimi vitae 

.y Google 


humanae.' See also comment on saecuia, ad Aen. 8, 508. 
Gellius 13, I discusses praeter naturam and praeier/atum in 
Cicero, and makes both mean a violent death. He quotes a 
parallel statement from Demosthenes, and says : " AvnS/iaTor enim 
OawoTot quasi naturalis et fatalis nulla extrinsecus vi coactus venit." 
The two are considered synonymous; nor do earlier references to 
death, yo/c, contain any inkling of the interpretation of Servius. 
Cf. Macr. Sotn. Scip. i, 6, S3 'cum aetas tua quinquageaimum et 
seztum annum compleverit, quae summa tibi fatalis erit, spes . . . 
te videbit . . . sed si evaseris insidias propinquorum.' 

The statement that two men reached the age of 120 years (Cic. 
de Sen. 19,69; Pliny, N. H. 7, 48, 156; Ps. Plut. Placit. 5. 30) 
can be matched by statements about men who reached still 
greater ages. If the statement of Tac. Ag. 44 'excessit LVI 
anno , . . medio in spatio integrae aetatis ereptus' points to the 
same belief, it will be necessary to interpret other references to 
aeUu in the same way. But other expressions in Tacitus, such as 
exaeia aetas and exirema aetas, will not bear such an interpre- 
tation. The promise of the karuspices recorded by F)av. Vop. 
Vita Floriani 15 (3), 3 was to be fulfilled at the end of a thousand 
years. Vopiscus suggests that he gives the statement merely as 
a curiosity. Censorinus de D. N. 17, 15 quotes from Varro a 
statement of the augur VetHus, that if there were la vultures 
'quoniam CXX annos incolumis praeterisset populus Romanus, 
ad mille et ducentos perventurum.' The method is the same as 
is Vergil's in computing the length of the reign of Ascanius, and 
the line of the Alban kings — successive multiplying of the base 
number by ten. 

Whatever weight may be attached to the passages indicating a 
belief in i3o years as the limit of human life, the fact is not stated 
where we would most expect it. Pliny, N. H. VII 153-65 con- 
siders the duration of life, but finally has recourse to the census 
of Vespasian, and gives ages varying from 120 to 150 years. 
Censorinus de Die Natali 17 considers ihe question at consider- 
able length. After defining saeculum (a) : 'spatjum vitae huma- 
nae tongissimum partu et morte definitum,' and '"■scussi"!; the 
limits fixed by others, he gives (5-6) the Etruscan method of 
computation. Their saecuia had varied from 100 to 133 years, 
according to Varro. The Romans, because they could not com- 
pute ihe saeculum exactly,{i3) fixed 100 years as the limit 
because that was an Etruscan saeculum, because many Romans 

.y Google 


lived to (bat age, and perbaps, as Varro records, becaase of a 
belief that men covud dm endure k-nger. (See also Plioy, N. H. 
!'• 37* 70> I&4-) He doses ibe discossioa vitfa the staleinent of 
Veiiiiis quoted above, referrii^ not to penmtml, bat to fuUUmal 

Statements in the vriteis of aboat ibe time of Tadtus do not 
reveal any sud) belid 

Seoeca,DiaL6, 21.3'iicet mibi VT\-acesct id memoriam tradttae 
senectutis viras nomioes, centenos denosque percenseas annos'; 
10, 3, 2 ' pervenisse te ad ultimum aetatb humanae videmus. cen- 
tesinias tibi vd supra premitnr amms ' ; Ep. 74, 27 ' bonestam vitam 

ex centum anaonim numero '; 91, 14 'aborigine sua ceotesimiis 

annus est, aetasnefaomini quidem eztrema.' C£72,3'loDgtssimos 
humani aevi termioos' ; 77, 20. Homimt 4uUu, de&iitdy limited, 
is not mentioned. Tadtus, Agr. 3, 10, says of 15 years : 'grande 
mortalis aevi spatium'; Quint. 3, i, 9 'longissimae aetatis nam 
centum et novero vixii annos'; PUny, Ep. 3, i, 7 'plenus annJs 
abiit'; 4 'annum lertium et octogensimum excessit.' For later 
suiements see Capdla 6, 697 'aeias illls ultra buroanam fragill- 
tatem prolixa, ut mature pereat qui centenarius moritur'; Macr. 
Som. Sdp. I, 6, 76 'aut dedes septeni aut septies deni compu- 
tentur anni, baec a pbysids crcditur meta \-ivendi, et hoc vitae 
humanae perfectum spatium terminatur.' 

The late period at which the statements of Servius and Treb. 
Poll, were made, the attitude of other writers to the facts stated, 
the absence of any mention by contemporary writers of the 
supposed limit, give suflident ground to reject the interpretation 
that for the time of Tadtus komints aefas meant I30 years to the 
exclusion of other periods. Even if the fact could be established 
beyond a doubt, nothing would be gained. If hominis ae/as = 
120 years and the sum of the reigns verifies the correctness of the 
statement hominis aeias, it also verifies 120 years. Nothing is 
gained by shifting from a number to its equivalent expressed in 
another way. That the items were given for the verification of 
the sum lao years is shown by the fact that at the close of c 24 
MalernuB returns to the subject, and speaks not of the hominii 
aeias, but of the exact number of years. Apcr gave the separate 
items, summed them up, gave an example of a man whose age 
was not known, but it was to the exact number of years that the 
minds of his bearers clung, though Messalla paid but little atten- 
tion to the statements, and (25, 4) drew the line 'ante c 

.y Google 


Aper had a twofold object in calling attention to the fact that 
120 years had elapsed since the death of Cicero. First to show 
that the glory of the orators mentioned from Caesar (B. C. 100- 
44) to Corvinus (B. C. 64 ?-A. D. 8 ?) was nearer to his own age 
than to the age of Servius Galba (189-138 B. C.) or of C. Carbo 
(Cons. lao B. C); second, to prevent the disputants from classi- 
fying as ancients ' oratores quos eorundem bominum aures adgno- 
scere ac velut coniungere et copulare potuerunt.' He illustrates 
the latter by two examples : one an old man whom be had seen 
in Britain, and who had seen Caesar; the other, some old soldiers 
who had received a donation from Augustus, and who might 
have heard Corvinus and Asinius. Aper had seen the old 
Briton ; his hearers had seen the old soldiers. Both illusiralions 
are used as connecting links between two periods. Soldiers 95 
years old when the congiarium was distributed by Titus in 72 
A. D. were 25 years old in 2 A. D., while Corvinus was still 
before the public, three years before the death of Asinius. The 
age of the Briton was his age, 55 B. C. -f 132 — the number of 
years since he had been seen by Aper, In other terms, his age 
was x+i$2—j' or about 153— _y. He may have been 150 or 
even older when seen by Aper. In neither illustration is the age 
fixed, but in this way Aper connected his hearers with Corvinus 
through the soldiers, and himself with Cicero through the Briton. 
In using these illustrations he perhaps did nothing more than 
follow rhetorical models, for Sen. Rhet. Contr. it Intr. says of 
himself; 'omnes autem magni in eloquentia nominis excepto 
Cicerone videor audisse ; ne Ciceronem quidem aetas mihi eripu- 
erit, sed bellorum furor . . . intra coloniam meam me continult : 
alioqui . . . potui adesse illud ingenium . . . cognoscere et . . . 
vivam vocem audire.' 

16, 29. caeli sidenimque. The combination of these two words 
seems to have been common, e. g. Verg. G. i, 335 ; Ovid, Met. 2, 
487 ; 14, 172 ; Livy 24, 34, 2 ; Mela 3, lOi ; Curt 4, 10, 4 ; Pliny, 
Pan. I ; Manil, i , 378 ; 3, 102 ; Sil. Ital. 9, 336 ; Capella 9, S91 ; 
Amob. Adv. Nat. 3, 37. Also Tac. Agricola 13, 14. In reverse 
order Sen. H. F. 75, Phaed. 964 ; Pliny, N. H. 2, 12 ; Sen. N. Q. 
a. 1,5- 

t6, 39. cum maxime 'at this particular time' is found also c. 
37, 7, eight times in Tacitus, a few times in Cicero and Livy, e. g, 
29, 17. 20 'passi sumus et cum maxime patimur,' and is used with 
considerable freedom by Seneca, e. g. Dial. 3, 16, 3; 5, 33, 4; 5, 
38, 1 — at least 39 times. 

.y Google 


17, 13. longum et unum. Cf. Pliny, Pan. 58 'longum quendam 
et sine discrimine annum.' For the postpositive position of untu 
see Mart. 4, 40, 6 'communis nobis lectus et unus erat'; ti, 49, 2 
'pauper et unus erat.' 

17, 29. Corvinus in medium usque August! principatus . . . 
duravit. Temporal in mque is not used by Tacitus, but this does 
not necessarily require the rejection of a non-Tacitean expression 
in the Oiaiogus. Usque is fairly common with durare, e. g. Tac 
Ann. 14, t ; H. 5, 10; Just 2, 4, 32; Quint. 3, t, 9; Pliny, Ep. 5, 
16, 5. Though usque ad is used in these passages, durare in is 
common, and the references given by Tbeilman, Archiv, VI 479 
seqq.,show that writers from Seneca to Suetonius were not averse 
to the use of in usque, though it is not so common as usque ad. 

The fact that the information is superfluous is not a valid 
objeaion to the passage. Many of the details given, e. g. the 
years of the reign of the emperors and the year in which the 
conversation took place, must have been well known to the inter- 
locutors, and to Fabius, if the work was written within a few 
years, the fact that the author was iuvenis at the time of the 
dialogue. Messalla expressly states (c. 28, i) that the facts stated 
by him were were well known: 'non reconditas, Mateme, requiris 
nee aut tthi ipsi aut huic Secundo vel huic Apro ignotas.' 

19, II. si dicendo quis diem eximeret. See Cic. ad Quint. 
Frat. 2, I, 3 'turn Clodius rogaius diem dicendo eximere coepit.' 
Without the specifying ablative the words diem eximere have a 
variety of meanings, e. g. Livy r, 50, 8 'ea res exemisset ilium 
diem'; Pliny, Ep. 5, 9, 2 'dimittuntur centumviri, eximitur dies'; 
Tac. H. 3, 81 'eximi supremo certamini unum diem poslulabat'; 
Livy 35, 3, 17 'concilio diem eximereL' 

19, 31. etsi non inatrucius at certe imbutus. Judging by the 
meaning of imbuere in other passages, the contrast here is between 
scholastic and non- scholastic acquirements, and not between exact 
and superficial knowledge. Cicero de Orat. 2, 39, 162 'doctrina 
liberaliter institutus et aliquo iam imbutus usu'; Orat. 49, 165 
'non scripta, sed nata lex quani non didicimus . . . verum ex 
natura ipsa adripuimus ... ad quam non docti, sed facti, non 
instituti, sed imbuti sumus.' The thoroughness of the work is 
implied Pliny Ep. 3, i, 6'quibus praeceptis imbuare'; Quint. 2, 
3, 3 'optimis imbui'; Just. 29, i, 7 'dux Annibal constituitur . . . 
odio Romanorum, quo imbutum eum a pueritia sdebant.' 

etsi non ... at certe. Also Ann. 12, 39 'etsi non proelium at 
certe bellum.' Suet CaL 12. 'Si non ... at certe' is more com- 

.y Google 


mon, e. g, Cic. de Off. 3, 7, 33 ; ad Fam. 15, 15, i ; ad Alt. 9, 7A, 
I ; Sen. Dial. 11, 4, 3; Front. Strat. 2, 3, 16 ; Pliny, Ep. 2, 3, 8. 
'Etiam 31 non ... at certe.' Sen. Contr. i, 3, i ; Sen. Dial. 5, 1, 4. 
Tavutt is much more commonly used, but in several instances 
Livy avoided its use, though not using 'etsi non ... at certe.' 
32, 54, 6; 37, 40, 9 be has 'certe ... etsi non,' avoiding the 
adversative particle by reversing the order. 2, 43, 8 'etsi non . . . 
saltern'; 25, 6, 2 'etsi non . . . certe'; 38, 26, 6 'etsi non'; 44, 6, 
7 'etiam si non' without the following particle. Also Ovid, Met. 
2, 383. With ai. Sen. Ep. 68, 1. 

30. 8. laetitia referring to literary qualities occurs' again Macr. 
Sat. 5, I, 15, commenting on Verg. G. 1 84 seqq. 'ecce dicendi 
genus quod nusquam alibi deprebendes, in quo nee praeceps 
brevitas nee iofrunita copia, nee Jeiuna siccitas nee laetitia pinguis.' 

21, 7. nee dissentire alios. Quintilian gives a more favorable 
viewofCalvus 10, i, 115 'inveni qui Calvum praeferrent omnibus.' 
Though these statements show widely different attitudes toward 
Calvus, there is hardly sufhcient ground for the belief that a 
reaction in favor of Calvus had set in during the interval between 
the two statements. Aper's statements, c. si, 33 and 33, 12, seem 
like intentional misrepresentations. Messalla attaches no weight 
to the statement of Aper, for in c. 25 he ranks Calvus with the 
best of Roman orators. However extensive may have been the 
uncriticised residue of the works of Calvus, there was enough, in 
the opinion of Messalla, to give him a high rank. 

31, II. verbis ornata et sententiis. This is from Cic. Orat. 3, 
13 'ornata verbis atque sententiis.' 

31, 30. Gudeman here calls attention to the &ct that both 
Asinius and Seneca were so blind to their own faults as to criticise 
others for peculiarities conspicuous in their own writings. Had 
the men criticised retorted with a just criticism, the two sets of 
critics would be accusing each other of identical faults. At c. iS, 
24 this state of affairs is not considered likely in the case of 
Brutus and Cicero. The attitude of Asinius and Seneca to their 
own faults shows at least a possibility of either Cicero or Brutus 
erring in critical judgments. 

22, 8. iuxta 6nem vitae. For a similar use of iuxla denoting 
temporal relations cf. Pliny, N. H. 2, 77, 79, 188 'iuxta solstitia 
. . . iuxta solstitium.' 

22, 8. senior iam. One class of the MSS has this reading, 
the other iam senior. In support of the latter may be quoted 

.y Google 


the statement of Quint. 12, 6, 4 'iam senior idem fatetur.' Both 
Quint, and the writer may be following the form stereotyped by 
Vergil, Aen. 5, 179; 6, 304; 7, 46; 7, 736; Juv. 6, 215. 

22, 9. postquam magis profecerat. Tacitus has postquam 28 
times with the pluperfect indicative. This shows the result of the 
influence of Sallust, who has the same construction six times in 
the Jugurtha. See Draeger, H. S. II 589. 

22, 20. sit in apparatu el aurum et gemmae. A verb in the 
singular with two subjects differing in person or number connected 
by ei — tt is extremely rare, e. g. Cic. ad Att. 4, 18, 5 (17, 3) 
' quern quidem abs te, cum dies venerit, et ego et Cicero meus 
flagitabit.' Servius ad Aen. 6. 473 'de hoc sermone quaerit et 
Probus et aJii.' It is, however, not uncommon when both nouns 
are in the singular. Of this we have noticed about 80 instances, 
chiefly in Cicero's Epistles, Livy, Seneca and Pliny the Younger. 
Id some instances the verb is placed between the subjects so that 
the number of the verb is influenced only by the first noun, e. g. 
Cicero ad Fam. 9, 13, 2 'et amicilia movet et humanitas'; Pliny, 
Pan. 63 'et moderatio tua suasit et sanctitas'; Quint. 11, 3, 52 
'qua et distinctio pent et affectus'; 13, 10, i 'in omnibus his et 
ars est et artifex.' 

In some of the instances one subject is accessory to the other, 
or else the two express phases of a general condition, e. g. ad 
Att. 2, 17, I 'neet opera et oleum philologiae nosirae perierit'; 
4> i> 5 'et frequentia et plausus . . . celebravit'; 9, 17, 2 'perutilis 
eius et opera et fidelitas esset'; ad Fam. 10, 22, i 'mirifice et 
senatus et cuncu civitas delectata est'; Livy 1, 43, 3 *in eo bello 
et virtus et fortuna eniluit'; 7, 30, 8 'spondet et v. et f.'; 31, 9, 8 
'et res et auctor movebat'; Sen. Dial. 7, i, 4 'et causa et auctor 
est'; Pliny, Ep. 3, 9, 8 'cuius et magnitudo et utilitas visa est 
postulare'; Quint. 11, i, 43 Tacit enim et fortuna discrimen et 
potestas'; Hor. Sat. i, 6, 93 'discrepat istis et vox et ratio.' As 
will be seen by the examples given, abstract nouns are the subjects 
in most instances, and these were not regarded as distinct entities. 
There are, however, a number of examples in which this is not 
the case, and in which the singular verb is used the same as if 
el^el were not used: ad Att. 16. i, 6 'egit autem et pater et 
filius'; ad Fam. 5, 7, 3 'sicut et roea natura et nostra amicitia 
postulat'; 10, 33, I 'nam et robur et suboles militum periit'; 11, 
28, 4 ' nisi et ante acta vita et reliqua mea spes tacente me probat ' ; 
15. 5. I 'quod et res publica et nostra amicitia hortatur'; N. D. 2, 

.y Google 


66, 165 'multos praeteiea et nostra civius et Graecia tulit singu- 
lares viros'; Sen. N. Q. 1, 6, 4 'pro me est et repeniina eiusfocies 
et repentinus interitus'; 6, 26, 3 'sed movetur et Aegyptus et 
Delos'; Pliny, Ep. 2, 14, 14 'et utilitas amicorum et ratio aetatis 
rooratur'; 4, 9, 11 'et dicentis calor et audientJs tntentio continu- 
atione servatur'; ad Trai. 23, 3 'et dignitas civitatis ct saeculi lui 
nitor postulat'; Jusiinus 14, 5, 10 'et Eurydice et rex occiditur'; 
Stat. Silv. 4, 2, 9 'nectat adoratas et Smyrna et Mantua lauros.' 

A singular verb with three subjects connected by et~et — et is 
occasionally found : Cic. ad Fam. 4, 13, 3 ' quibus et natura me et 
voluntas et consuetudo assuefecerat'; de Petit. Cons. 11, 42 'cuius 
et frons et vultus et sermo . . . accommodandus est'; Sen. de 
Benef. 5, 19, 6 'prodest enim et animal et lapis ct herba,' nee 
tamen beneficium dant.' In this the subjects are first kept 
distinct in thought and then considered as plural ; 7, 14, 3 'si et 
piudentia et industria et fortiludo muneribus suis functa est'; Cic. 
ad Fam. 16, 17, t 'nam et doctrina et domus et ars et ager etiam 
fidelis did potest.' We are able to quote only a few examples in 
which the subjects are not unmodified words: Cic. ad Att. 12, 33, 
2 'sed et paedagogi probitas et medici assiduitas et tota domus in 
omni genere diligens me . . , vetat'; Cic. Cat, 2, a, 3 'idque a me 
et mos maiorum et huius imperii severitas et res publlca postu- 
labat ' ; Pliny, Ep. ad Trai. 1 2, I ' hortatur et natalium splendor et 
summa integritas in pauperlate etante omnia felicitas temporum'; 
Servius ad Aen. 12, 225 'cuius aucloriiaiem commendabat et origo 
maiorum et paterna virtus et propria fortitude '; Cic. ad Ait. 3, 
II, 1 'me et tuae litterae et quidam boni nuntii, non optimis 
tamen auctoribus, et expectatio veslrarum litterarum et quod tibi 
ita placuerat adhuc Tbessalonicae tenebat.' 

42, 6. ego te . . . Messalla . . . criminabimur. Draeger, H, S. I 
174. §iot, quotes Livy i, 6 'Palatium Romulus, Remus Aventi- 
num ad inaugurandum templa capiunt' as the first example of a 
plural predicate with two distinct subjects in adversative clauses. 
See, however. Cic. ad Att. 15, 9, 1 ' ut Brutus in Asia, Cai'sius in 
Sicilia frumentum emendum . . . curarent.' For other examples 
not cited by him see Curt. 5, 13. tS 'Nabarzanes Hyrcaniam. 
Bessus Bactra . . . petebant'; Suet. Jul. 36 'P. Dolabclla classem 
. . . CN. Domitius Calvinus in Ponto exercitum amiserunt'; Just. 
13' 4> 15 'Cariam Cassander, Lydiam Menander sortiuntur'; 15, 
4, 34 'Seleucus Demeirio, Ptolemaeus Lysimacho iunguntur,' 

23. 13. valetudo, meaning good health. With this meaning 
valehtdo occurs once in Tac. and twice in Quintilian. With 



Cicero it may mean either good or poor health, see Peterson, 
QuinL Intr., p. xliv. In de Finibus it is freely used, meaning 
good health. We have noticed the following in Seneca : Dial. 5, 
S. t 'lirmius corporis et diligens valetudiniscura'; 7, 3i, 1; de 
Qem. I, 19, 7 ; Ep. 15, 2 ; 76, 12 'si quia omnia alia habeat, vale- 
tudinem, divitias, imagines muttas . . .'; 95, 58 'rerum commo- 
danim possessio . . . valetudo, vires, forma . . .' ; 106, 5 ; 107, 7 ; 
1 17, 8 'si valetudo indifferens est bene valere indifferens est.' Cf. 
DiaL 3. 6, 2 'valeiudtnem . , , fitmare'; 5,8,2 'valetudini proftiiL' 
Fronto also has a few cases, e. g, p. 47 N.; p. 81 (XV 30, 2). 

24, 15. effici ratio temporum collegerit. Cf. Pliny. N. H. 3, 
88 'Aegyptia ratio . . . patere colligit.' Ratio is used in about 
the same way Suet Cal. 8 ' Plinium arguit ratio temporum.' 

26, 4. tinnitus Gallionis. tinnitus 'jingling style' is bi. tip., 
but its analogue linnulus occurs in Hieron., Ep. 143, 2 'tionula 
verba,' and Fronto, p. 156 N. 'graviores senientias apud Annaeum 
. . . neque ita cordaces . . . neque ita dnnulas.' C£. Quint. 2. 3, 9 
'nam tumidos, et comiptos, et tinnulos et quocunque alio cacoze- 
liae genere peccantes.' (Cited by Peter ad loc. Ill 3. 9.) 

26, 17. vis and sanguis are not always used as synonyms. 
Livy 10, 35, tt 'nee virium quicquam nee sanguinis'; 35, 14, 9 
'quos vires, sanguis desereret': Sen. Ep. 24, 8 'cum minus san- 
guinis haberet, minus virium, animi idem'; S4, 6 'in vires et in 
sanguinem transeunt'; Ovid, Met. 7, S59 'fiigiunt cum sanguine 

28, 7. primum . . . mox. This correlation occurs five times in 
Quintilian, 45 times in Tacitus, and a few times, e. g., in Livy and 
Pliny's Ep. It seems to be relatively the most frequently used 
in Jusiinus (19 times) and Velleius (I3 times, including 3, I03 
' prima parte . . . mox '). 

s8, 13. circa educandos formandosque liberos ... in gremio 
ac sinu matris educabatur. Varro, as cited by Nonius, s. v., 
confines physical training to the nurse: 'educit obstetrix, educat 
nutrix, instituit paedagogus, docet magister.' This distinction 
was not always observed, e. g. Suet. Aug. 48 'liberos et edueavit 
simul cum suis et insiituit'; Titus 3'educatus in aula cum Bri> 
tannico simul, ac paribus disciplinis et apud eosdem magistros 
insti tutus.' 

Edutare is occasionally used elsewhere of physical education. 
Livy I, 4, 7 ' Larentiae uxori educandos daios'; Sen. N. Q. 3, 27. 
2 'quantis laboribus tener educaiur'; Quint. 10, i, lo'iniantes a 

.y Google 


mutis nutridbus . . . educati'; Suet Auf;. 94 'senatum exterritum 
censubse ne quia illo anno genitus educaretur'; Justinus i, 4, 13 
'pro filio pastoris educatur. Nutrici postea Domen Spaco fiiit'; 
Ainob. adv. Nat 5, 13 'lacte inrans educatus hirquino est' See 
Funck, Archiv, VII 82-3. To the references given by him (p. 
95) oi parmli (c 29, 7}, add Justinus i, 4, 13 'permutata sorte 
parvulonim'; 23, 3, 6; 2, 9; 43, 2, 6; Servius ad Aen. 11, 537 
'quae coepla a parvulis (Thilo),' an incorrect quotation of 
Terence, And. 3, 3, 6. 

28, 23. Educationibus. The plural oi edueatuf occurs Ann. 3, 
25 and Macr. Sat. i, 7, 25 'educationes et omnium . . . fertilium 
tribuunt dtsciplinas.' 

30, 1 in quibus et ipsis ; 37, 15 quae et ipsa. Et ipse 'likewise, 
equally' is used ten times by Tacitus, only once with the relative: 
H. I, 42 'de quo et ipso.' With the relative pronoun et ipse 
occurs a few times in Livy (4, 9, 4; 5, 25, 7; 7, 32, 11 ; 9, 40, 18; 
10, 30, 6 ; 21, 23, 5 ; 29, 6, 1 ; 44, 5, 10 ; 45, 38, 12). Seneca does 
not use it freely (Apocol. 4, 2; Ep. 90, 6), though it is quite 
common in Pliny, N. H. (3, 54; 10, 31; 11, 90; 12,47; 15, 43; 
loS; el al.), and is found in Pliny, Ep. (3, 9, 20; 4, 23, 5; ad 
Trai. 59). Quintilian has it at least a dozen times (e. g. i, 4, 9 ; 
I, 7, 34; 3, 5, 33), Suetonius half as many (e. g. Aug. 43, 89, 97). 
It is used freely by the Scriptores Hist Aug., and instances of its 
use are scattered through a number of other writers. 

With other words it is used most freely by Livy. Weissenbom 
ad Livy 21, 17, 7 refers to four other instances in book XXI. 
Curtius follows Livy. In Pliny the Elder the occurrences are 
most noticeable in books 16 and 35. Freely used in Suet, in the 
Scrip. Hist Aug., el ipse is one of the marked features of the 
style, especially of Capitol inus. 

30, 13. suae eloquentiae velut quandam educationem refert. 
C£ Cic. de Fin. 5, 14, 39 'eanim etiam rerum, quas terra gignit, 
educatio quaedam et perfectio est non dissimilis animan6um.' 

30, 4. rhetoras. This Greek ace. plural is not common in 
Latin. It is found here, c. 35, 13, and in a Senatus consultum 
quoted by Suet Rhet i, and Cell. 15, 11, 2. It is also found 
Sen. Rhet. Suas. 3, 12 ; Contr. 7, 19, 8 ; Martial 5, 56, 3 ; Macr. 
Sat 4. 4, 17; 19; 4,6,13; 5,2,1; Quint II, 3, 58 'nam Cicero 
ilJos ex Lycia et Caria rhetoras paene cantare in epilogis dixit.' 
(Cf. Cic. Orat 18, 57 'e Phrygia et Caria rhetorum epilogus paene 

^d by Google 


30, 18. Achaiam quoque et Asiam peragrasse. According to 
Cicero's own testimony (Brut. 91, 315), he studied only at Athens 
in Greece proper. Sen. Rhet. has about the same statement : 
Suas. 6, II 'Siciliam dixit vindicatam ... Ciliciam . . . admini- 
stratam, familiares studiis eius et Achaiam et Asiam.' The 
explanation is historical — the extension to Greece of the name of 
the province Achaia. Livy frequently has Asia and Graecia 
coupled, but later Achaia took the place of Graecia. Velleius 2, 

33. .1 'maior pars nobilitatis ad Sullam in Achaiam ac deiode post 
in Aiiam perfugit. Sulla interim . . . circa Atbenas . . . dimicavit' ; 
Tac. Ann. 5, 10 'Asia et Achaia exterritae sunt.' The account 
following shows that 'Piracum Atticae orae* (1. 14) was consid- 
ered as part of Achaia. Suet. Nero 23 ' Achaiam . . . petit.' The 
account of his return 25 has 'reversus e Graecia.' Pliny, £p. 8, 

34, 3 'in provinciam Achaiam illam veram et meram Graeciani.' 
For the arrangement of words cf. Suet. Tib. 6 'per Siciliam 
quoque et per Achaiam circumductus.' 

31, 2. opus esse ut. Ann. 3. 69 'expedire ui.' Draeger 
suggests that ut is used with expedire to avoid the dependence of 
one iniinitive on another. The Dial, has cpus esse ui for the 
same reason. Taciius does not seem to have serious objections 
to such dependence. Cf. H. i, ii, 3 'ita visum expedire, provin- 
ciam , . . retinere.' For other examples of opus est ut not cited 
by Draeger, II 373, see Ter. Phor. 304 'opus est nunc quom 
maxime ut sis, Antipho.' For exx. in late Latin, see Just. Inst. 
3. I9> 2; 4, 7, I ; 4, 17, 3; 3, 23. 3 'sciendum est opus esse, ut 
aliquis . . . heres instituatur.' 

32, I. sufficere ut. To the examples cited by Draeger, H. S 
II 373, add Benef. 3, 34, 3 'noa sufficimus, ut singulis 
singula adsignemus'; Pliny, Pan. 30 'sufficial ut scias'; Servius 
ad Aen. 8, 515 'significat nondum eum sufficere, ut inlellegatur, 
quid nolit.' 

33, II. armis instnictus . . . artibus armatus. C£ c 5, 3i artein 
qua armatus. The apparent shifting of terms is for rhetorical 
effect, and smacks of the style of Gorgias. 

32, 14. pudenda as an adjective is used seven times by Tacitus. 
It is found a few times in Pliny, N. H.; e. g. 7, 149; 33, 50; Pliny, 
Ep. 5, 13.9; f^n, 54; Quint. 6, 4, 7 'pudendum dJctu.' C£ Tac 
H. 2,61,1. 

34, 4. principem in dvitate locum obtinebaL FiM* parcel 
examples in which pritueps does not refer to official position, see 

.y Google 


Suet. Aug. 51 ' pTincipem etiam in civitate locum tenere'; de 
Gram. 23 'p. locum . . . tenuit'; Fronto, p. 200 N. 'qui nunc fori 
principem locum occupant.' 

35, 6. Non facile dixerim. These expressions are most com- 
mon in Cicero and Tacitus, and used with some freedom by Pliny 
and Seneca ; e. g. Pliny, N. H. P. 28 ; 2,6; 9, 183 ; 33, 9 ; 35, 10 ; 
36, 50; Sen. Dial. 10, 12, 7; de Benef. i, i. 3; Ep. S2, 91 88, 46; 

35i 'S- pueris . . . robust i or ibus. C£ Pliny, Ep. Trai. 96, 2 
'teneri nihil a robustioribus diflerant' 

36, 5 composita et quieta et beata re publica ; 41 , 3 compositae 
civitads. Tac. Add. 4, j 'compositae rei publicae.' Cf. Cic de 
I.e^. 3, 42 'composita et constituta re publica'; 2, 11 'vitam . . . 
quietam et beatam.' 

36, 32. quo modo ... sic contra. The statement of Draeger, 
H. S. II 632, 3. 4, does not hold good for the works of Seneca, 
who freely uses both guomodo and quern ad modum, e. g, de 
Benef.: quomodo 2, 33, i ; 4, 27, 5 ; 5, 8, 3 ; 5, 13, 4 ; 5, 15, 1 ; 6, 
6> 3 ; 6i 8, 1 (17 exx.) ; quern ad modum 3, 32, i ; 6, 1 1, 4 (25 exx.). 

36, 34. mutum et elioguem. For examples of the reverse 
order see Amob. adv. Nat. 3, 34 ; 5, 40. 

37, 2. clieotulorum. This reading is also given for Tac. Ann- 
is, 36 'iDcedeDtibus regiis dieotulis.' In this passage the dimin- 
utive form is hardly in keeping with the display on that occasion, 
nor is the diminutive a form freely used by Tacitus. The Tac. 
Lex. gives nine for the Dialogus: adulesceniulus, aneiUa, clien- 
iuius, codicillus, formula, libellus, oratiunctda, parvulus and 
quantulus. Tacitus has these except /iTrm. and oral., and adds 
but five more: casteiium, lecHcula, lectuius, mtUiercula and 
Utamatitu, which is the only one not in comoion use. Id this 
respect the usage of Tacitus widely differs from that of Pliny the 
Younger. See Lagergren, p. 73. 

37. 33* proelitUor is a rare word, e. g, Tac. Ann. 3, 73 and twice 
in Am. Marcell. 19, 7,8; 23, 5, 24 'p. miles.' ^.f^ta/or is equally 
rare. To exx. given in Harpers' Lex. add Am. Marcell. 29, 5, 39. 

40, I. datum ius potentissimum quemque vexandi. This 
evidently refers to the attacks made on leading politicians by 
Roman orators, /tu, though not an official right conferred, was 
a recognized right. Tacitus, Ann. 3, 30 'cerubant (sc accusa- 
lores) cui ius perorandi in reum daretur' indicates official recog- 
nition given. C£ Pliny, Ep. ad Trai. 31, i 'cum ius mihi dederis 

.y Google 


re&rendi ad te de quibus dubito'; Sen. Dia]. s, 13, 3 'nisi ius 
arnids obiurgandi se dedisseL' 

40, It. inciiatnetUum is used fourteen times by Tacitus, who 
also uses it of persons. It b also found Sen. Ep. 64, 9 ; Curt. 4, 
14, I ; 8, 14, II ; 3, It, 7 'Dareus cumj sublirois eroinebat et suis 
ad se tuendum et faostibus ad incessendum ingens indtameatum '; 
9, 5, 6 ' desperatio, magnum ad honeste monendum indtamentum.' 

41, 19. obviam periditantibus eat. Obviam ire generally bas 
a hostile significatioo. In Tac it is used a few times, as in H. 4, 
46 (timori), Ann. 4, 6 (infecunditati), 13, 5 (dedecori), indicadng 
hostility to an evil. The verb has the usual hostile connotation, 
but the enemy is not a person, but an abstraction, and good 
results come as a result of antagonism to the evil. With objects 
of this kind the words are not infrequently used. Sail. J. 5, i 
(superbiae nobilitatis) ; 14, 25 (iniuriae); 31, 4 (factionis poten- 
tiae) ; 42, i (Gracchorum actionibus) ; Livy, e, g. 3, 35, 7 (cupi- 
diuti) ; 3, 37, 8 ; 3, 59, 4 ; 4, 2, 1 1 ; Sen. Dial. 6, i , i (dolori) ; 9, 
II, I (fortunae); de Clem, i, 35, 4 'evadere pusilla mala, ingen- 
tibus obviam itur'; Cell. 5, 10, 11 ; 6, 3, 43. 

36-40, 8. This section stands between parts spcAen by Mes- 
salhi and Matemus without any MS indication of the dividing 
line between the two. It has been assigned by critics to Matemus, 
to Messalla and to Secundus. If not spoken by Matemus there 
must be a second lacuna ad 40, 8 of which the MSS do not give 
any indications. The question is discussed at length by Gudeman 
(Proleg. Ixxv seqq.). Messalla is r^ccted because the subjects 
discussed in this section differ from those discussed by Messalla. 
The claim for Matemus is rejected because the statements conflict 
with other statements of Matemus. The argument for Secundus 
is based on artistic considerations in connection with the state- 
ments I, 15 'cum singuli . . . causas adferrent' and 16, 8 'pro 
duobus promitto: nam et ego et Secundus exsequemur eas 
partes.' In the first statement neither singuli nor causas neces- 
sarily implies that all took a part. It was made before the intro- 
duction of the sprnkcm. Hnd merely asserts that the writer is to 
set forth individual opinions. If causas is taken in the exact 
meaning as diMCUHHcd liy MrNHulla, then Aper and Matemus are 
excludrd from uiiy connpition with the essential part of the 
discuMniun, nnd the wrItei'H method is decidedly faulty in giving 
half hix work to qiii-Hiioiin oiilMide of his expressed subject. 

The pruiiiine niude by Mulfrniia (c. 16, 8) does not strengthen 
the plea for SecunUmi, For Messalla, in accordance with the 

^d by Google 


taasac wiagaae a gTa»t&. c 
qindem ceo jam i 
coouviy ID ins pnnnBC i 
and Aper nd SecmidiBt, le if ii 
to the cnadnn of me diaiqeiK;. i 

la favor Oi *i*mwtri\tt. u^ UqiLX 1WI- 1 

equality ^riah Aper. sod -Am: i: wnmic be uu m m^ ' } a: s InaHry 
anist to r g p reBcm If cskSb as gint^ a£ ^k eras of :d>e oa::iine 

The introdntaScD of Apei mc Secnnnis v 
the fuudaoienn] siylisbc frB iiiw of iIk Z'wJ 
of parts. In scores of pa^EBg^ P^^?^" iKma sre rci 
pairs, and smBar anangemois o: cdio' wards k« cfmonc ^t die 
hnndicd. Their danclenKaDan nriangii Ctrerc f e faiiit^j a ia igka 
of Antonhis and CnasiB. Tlic daracar iiinj oai of j^g ptj sgpiNr 
iatrodoces than as oae od" dK dnve lypes cCK^rn 
in the Dtalogm — the ianamc ihr podic and ^tt f 
present Secondos and Aper as types of ilie ioraisc. and iben 
represent Aper as tiae to his type and Seczitcos as £f>i:bsmui 
for the oratorical type, is to violate the cor>d:bo(s inpbed in the 
introduction. Aper speab as the te^gBmlatiTg oi the iorcBsic 
type, and the devdopme ut of the Chalogns shoms duA (he 
discussion of oratorical qoestiaas was reserved tot the orator 
Hessalla alone. 

Throughout the Dialogns, Sccundiis is consistently sobonUnated 
to the other speakers, whOe their attitude toward MessalU b &r 
different The imfdied advice of Secondos to Maternus (c 3) is 
rejected by him. Invited to act as judge of the discussion Cc 4). 
he declines. C. 15 Messalla is represented as frequently consid- 
ering the causes of oratorical decline, and io contrtsl with others 
the similar decline in Greece had only enhanced for him the 
value of the investigation into the causes of the decline. Secun- 
dus assures him that the man best fitted for the task was himself; 
'ad cuius summam eniditionem et praestantissimum ingeniumcura 
quoqueetmeditatio accessit(i6,3).' Aper then speaks i Messalla 
follows, and gives a bird's-eye view of Roman orators (67 lines)> 
Maternus interrupts and calls for the causes. Messalla then dis- 
cusses some educational methods (146 lines), merely stating facts 

.y Google 


well known to the rest. As already shown, he closes his remarks ; 
the others do not take up the discussion, but give way to him, 
and he quasi rursus autpiens has 68 lines. He had indicated 
the fact of the decline, had discussed educational methods in the 
earliest stages and in the education of young men. The next 
section discusses the third phase of the question : the effect or 
education furnished by political conditions. It stands in the 
same relation to the other two as they stand to each other — aot 
the same in substance, but forming with them an organic unit. 
This is by far the most important part of the discussion, and it 
alone touches the magnae causae ui>derlying the decline. This 
moat important part could not have been assigned to Matemus, 
for it would not be proper to represent him as giving way to 
Messalla, repeatedly urging him to give causes, and then giving 
the most important cause himself. For the same reason it cannot 
be assigned to Secundus, for it would be out of harmony with his 
own statements about the superior qualifications of Messalla for 
the task and with the subordinate position assigned to him 
throughout the Dialogus. It is only to Messalla that we can 
assign this part, which rounds out the argument of Messalla, 
justifies the judgment of Secundus, and rewards the repeated 
efforts of Matemus to get a complete statement of causes, explains 
why Messalla and not Secundus spoke in the last chapter of the 
attack made by Matemus on the views of the preceding speaker, 
and why Secundus was not included in the final statement of the 

In. W«». Uhi*,. BiooKwoTOW. It*. R- B. STEEL.S. 

.y Google 


My dear and venerated friend, the late lamented Professor R. 
von Roth, of Tuebingen, used to say that he preferred a free 
translation of metrical matter to a literal one (it being always 
understood that the texts had been exhaustively examined by 
the translator beforehand, and explained in so far as he possessed 
the opportunity and the power). His reason was the obvious 
one ihat free rendering leaves no room for pretexts which might 
cover up the translation's uncertainty as to what was in reality 
the ancient author's point. 

The essence of an idea cannot be given without an emphasis, 
and that so unmistakable that it excludes all that may be equiv* 
ocal ; the translator must say what he thinks his author meant, or 
he might quite as well say nothing whatsoever at all. A rhythm 
also is to the last degree desirable, for, as writers who use it well 
know, it helps to express the sentiment of what is said. For this 
reason I have taken the advice of a friend well versed in literary 
composition,' and I have printed some pieces of free rendering 
of the Gftthas in the Asiatic Quarterly Review.* I here offer 
another, which, my friends will be assured, has only been made 
after the closest examination and reproduction of all the texts 
that are extant and relevant, completed with all the patience and 
energ>' that I could command during the course of many years.' 
I give this fragment here also because it contains my latest views, 
for, as all critics know, one's views on these most difficult com- 
positions seldom reach a stage at which they may not be in some 
paniculars still further changed for the better. 

Zarathushtra (Zoroaster), a princely priest living in ancient 
Bactria, is engaged defensively and oflensively in carrying through 
a campaign in what must have been pretty nearly a religious civil 

' See the Timei of India, Sept. 34, 1 S94. 

'See the Atlalic Qnarterlf RcTiew for Juuiy, 1S9S, ind also Toi October. 

*5ee ■ The Fire Zartthuihtrian Glthai, with the Zend, PahUvi, Sftnikrit and 
?enian texts, tranilalioni and commentair, hf L. H. Mills, D. D. Pp. 633 -|- 
ux. Brockhans, Leiptig. 1S93-94.' 30/. See alto the Fettgrut* to Profesaot 
R. Ton Roth, where, at p. 193. I have given a Saotkrit translation of Yasna 
XXVIII, for which I received the special thanks or the venerable scholar. 



war. Not %o much moved by a poet's inspiratioa as by fierce 
paMtioiu and anxious political interest, be gives eatpre ai ons to 
feari, hopei, and appeals whicb are called for by the situatioD; 
and collecting; bits which he had often doubdess recited to bis 
immediate comrades, he weaves tbem into a whole, to be deliv- 
ered at some meeting of the tribes who were from time to time 
grouped about their leaders to confer. Doubdess much of thb 
production, as it was originally chanted, has been lost ; but what 
remains of it seems to me to be graphic ; and it even casts some 
ot>lic|ue light on history. The metre is practically Trishtup, one 
of the oldest metres of the Rig Veda prevailing in the Vasishtba 
Hymns, and this of itself affords a strong proof of the remote 
anti()uity of the strophes. 

I diNcard here all attempt at a mechanical reproduction of the 
numbered syllables as not being adapted to English, endeavour- 
ing only to preserve a rhythm, for I have given a specimen of an 
rXHCt imitation in the periodical quoted above. Here, as in those 
other pieces, 1 oAen allow the accent perhaps an unusual value, 
AN rendering a word of fewer syllables equal to one much longer, 
or to two ; and even the natural cadence, where it is deepened by 
ft-cling, seems to me to claim a simitar concession. The reader 
Citn ettnily see that Yasna XLVI describes (by inference) a 
cheijui^rwl but not a broken career. Reverses have been expe- 
rienc«il and ground lost, but the poet-prince determines on a 
titlly, nml enileavuurs to encourage his friends by promises, while 
b« iulimuUlca his opponents by threats. 

A HvMJt OF Zoroaster. 

t. To what Und shjtl I turn ? where with my ritual go?' 
S>i kuLMUcn, 3Lli:«^ t>r the ntjiss 
Niiie ti* cvwiteut their *frvice otf« me. 
Nvi; hjive thfv vet who rule the t'rv>vitt*:e, evil. 
How th^it to ^\e4se Tb^e. MuvIj. Lord ! ' 

, Google 


. This know I Mazda wherefore foiled 1 wander 
My flocks so small,' and following so feeble ; 
To Thee in grief I cry, behold it, Master, 
Thy grace vouchsafing me, as friend bestows on friend, 
Showing with pureness Thy Good Mind's riches besL 

. When come Ahura, they the days' light-givers, 
Stay of Thy people's Law, and onwards pressing. 
Wise planning Saviours they with potent teaching? 
To whom for help comes too ihe Good Mind's server ? 
Thee for my teacher Ahuri 1 seek. 

4. Who bear the Law these saints the faithless foeman' 
From wealth of Herds doth hold with evil power ; 
By his own deeds he cheats his folk of weal. 

Who him from life and rule shall hurl expelling 
Fields for the Kine with prospered skill he spreads. 

5. He who as ruler helps not that assailant. 
In our religion's creed and treaties faithful, 
In the right living, may he, pure, to sinners, 
Arigiit to prince with threat give warning, 

" In rising crush they him, O Mazda Lord !' 

6. Who having power doth not thus approach him* 
To the Lie-demon's home in chains will go ; 
The wicked's friend is he and likewise wicked. 
But righteous he who loves the righteous. 
Since the primeval laws Thou gavest, Lord." 

tht only help 

7. Whom then as guard to save us will they set me 
When as his aim for harm the wicked marks ? 
Whom have I then but Thee Thy Fire, and Meaning ? 

' Flocks and herd) were commiiuriat ss vrell ai property. 
* The chief of the Daevn-parl;. 

' See mjr Gilhu, p. 550, for ■hemaiivex to this most difficult verae ; mi 
The Sacred Booki of Ihe East, vol. XXXI, p. 135. 
''Approach him to warn, or approach us 10 help'; see m; Gtthas, p. 5; 

^d by Google 


By deeds or whom Thou shieldeat Right, Ahura; 
To me this wonder-power for faith declare. 

. He who my settlements to harm hath given 
Ne'er may his burning wrath through deeds destroy. 
In hate to him come that which Weal opposeth. 
That to his body comes which holds from blessing, 
May nought from vengeful wrath deliver. Lord I 

. Who is the offerer who heeds me foremost 
How in our riles to praise Thee, well to be invoked ? 
Pure for Thou art above us, great Ahura. 
What Thine through Right declared the Herds creator 
That seek Thy saints as my blest message, Lord. 

affeal and frvmist 
. Who e'er, to me, be he or man, or woman. 
Our tribes gift gives which Thou the best perceivest, 
Prize for the holy gives with Good Mind's ruling. 
Whom, praising You, I urge as comrade leading. 
Forth to the Judge's Bridge' with all I go! 

II. Karps,' yea, and Kavts* are with foul kings joining. 
Deeds which are evil with, man's life to slay ; 
Cursed by their souls and selves, their being's nature. 
From Judgment's Bridge they fall, the final pathway 
In Demon's Home at last their bodies' lie ! 

a brighttr litU 
13. When Right-inspired and 'midst Tura's* kinsmen 
Come from Fryana forth 'midst those illustrious 
They who Devotions lands with Zeal are helping 
With these together God through Good Mind dwelleth. 
To them in helpful grace commanding speaks. 

' Thx Chinvat Bridge which extended from Ml. Alborj over Hell toward 
Heaven ; to the infidels and tinners it becomes narrow so that thej fall ; but 
it become* wide as nine javelins' length to the righteona (so the later Zoio- 

'Hostile patties. *0r 'their habitation is.' 'Border Turanian allies. 



13. Who Zarathuahtra gifts 'midst men vouchsafetb 
Righteous is he himself 'midst men declared ; 
Life upon him bestows the Lord Ahura, 

Farms that are his promotes with Good Mind helping ; 
Comrade for you through Right we think him meet. 

a vtUt from tht lirvHff' 

14. Whom hast Thou thus, O Zarathushtra righteous? 
Who seeks distinction in our holy toils ? 

'Tis he himself heroic Vishlasp Kav4'; 

Whom in the same abode Thou, Lord, shalt gather 

These in the words of Good Mind I invoke ! 

a grffiif aidrested 

15. To you I speak, O Haechad-aspa, kinsmen. 
Since things unlawful ye discern and lawful ; 
By these your deeds ye help the holy State 
With the primeval laws which Mazda gave!' 

16. Come, Frashaostra thou with offerers, Hvogva ! 
With those we seek to bring this land's salvation ; 
Come where Devotion blends with Holy Justice,* 
Where lie the Realms desired of Good Mind, 
Where God in His own might' abides, 

17. Where I in holiest metre chant the doctrines;' 
Never the measureless profane' I'll utter; 
Praise with Obedience and with gifts 1 offer ; 
Who severs keenly each the ialse and lawful 
May He with wondrous' Holiness give heed!' 

18. Who sanctity to me concedes for blessing 

Him of my wealth give I through Good Mind best ; 

'Poetical coDception. or, A) in modem wrilings, ■ merely Thetorictl expre*- 

' The King. 

'A line ii. cnrioaily, mining here. 

*A«ha, or the i«crowaci Liw. 

'SeemyGIthu, p. j6t : ponibly 'in His cboten Home,' or 'citadel.' 

•Metre lacred ai in the Veda, 

'See my GIthai and S, B. E. XXXI at Ihe place. 

^d by Google 


winw «(^t ^* a6nTc <Ic ri tpi^ (B. M. CXXI 174). So Piiny 
tells that the kernels of the pine-cone quench thiist : nuclti nucis 
pineae sitim sedam fXXXII 143). 

If you want to indulg^e in wine without getting drunk, you 
must eat a pig's roast lung: iraXX^ irlrwra fu? lafiinw' x"'!**"" 
•rnvfiora oirr^c <pvy (B. M. CXXI 180). This revellers did in 
Pliny's time as well : ebrietatem arcet pulmo apri aut suis assus, 
ieiuni cibo sumptus eo die (XXVIII 262). 

He tells us (XXXIV 166) that leaden tablets were made use of 
ad cohibendum tmpetum Veneris. In the same way the magician 
of the fourth century, who wanted to prepare a ^^usruii' sal 
tnroraicTuJK ytrralo* nil naroxot (sic ; the masculine is guarded by 
nAToxot supra and (iSvXot V 7, 24), inscribed his hocus-pocus on a 
leaden tablet made of a water-pipe (B. M. CXXI 405 ; Wessely, 
1893. 10). 

Several times in these papyri the celebrated plant KanvayKii 
enters into a charm. These all distinctly refer to the SuD-god 
(B. M. CXXI 548, 1039; CXXIi 74 ff.). The way to explain 
this connection is shown by Pliny (XXVIl 57). Very scornfully 
he refuses to give particulars about a herb good only for love- 
charms. But he stales at least the reason for this use : electam 
ad hunc usum, quoniam arescens contrahat se tn speciem unguium 
milvi. The milvus or kite is a kind of hawk (accipitris genus, 
Upa^ Greek), and the hawk, as is well known, was the sacred bird 
of the Sun-god (cp. Thompson, A Glossary of Greek Birds, s. v. 

B. M. CXXI 718 ff. give the recipe for an SrypimrTinK^'' *<" "■""- 
pibot, and some part of the same uncanny creature serves the 
same purpose in an aywyti aypvnrtrri*^ Par. 2943 and an ayputrviTTixiSv 
V II, 27. With this we must compare Pliny, XXX 140 somnum 
arcet vespertilionis caput aridum adalligatum. 

W. VI 26 ff. (Abraxas, 188, 3) we find a charm destined to 
make fiij fiua/Siaai ibitpa yvraimt Ij Snipa irpAr yuvalica. Xaffup i^iditvfta 
cupir i9dX( KOTti rov vrpo^'vt r^t Bipat aurw ktX. This effect was not 
confined to the solid excrements of a dog alone. At least : qui 
in urinam canis suam egesserit dicitur ad venerem pigrior fieri 
(Pliny, XXX 143; cp. XXIX 162). 

Among the ingredients of a sacrifice by which an alleged thief 
shall be brought to confession, there is the tongue of a frog 
(Anastasy, XLVI 398, in Wessely I), if indeed yXmrira ^rpaxov 
is not, as other parts of animals in these books so often are. 

.y Google 


simply the mystical name of some harmless plant (Dieierich, 
Jabrb. Suppl. XVI 781 ff.)- This explanation, however, does not 
seem to bold, when we consider the ' Democritean ' charm, pre- 
served by Pliny, XXXII 49 Democrttus tradit, si quis extrabat 
raoae vivenCi Iln^uam nulla alia corporis parte adhaerente, ipsa- 
que dimissa in aquam, imponat supra cordis palpitalionem mulieri 
dorroienti, quaecumque inter rogavei it vera responsuram. About 
this curious recipe more will be said presently. It is true, the 
resemblance between this Democritean charm and the papyrus is 
not very striking. For in the latter the yk^aa ^pdxov only 
comes in io the sacrifice while the thief will properly be detected 
by the 'bread and cheese' ordeal, which played an important 
pan in finding out a witch during the middle ages (Tuchmann, 
HClusine, IV 334 C).* But as the principal object in both cases 
is to force the truth from an unwilling mouth, we may, after all, 
have the right to connect the two pass^es. 

V 6, 27 an elaborate charm begins : the manufacture of a little 
ring for every business and good luck, which is «pic rouf fiatrOuu 
tal iry«ii6rat Xtav ir*pyit. The engraving must be made on an 'uinrif 
itfiCww (sic; cp. Dieterich, p. 8a6). Of this precious stone we 
read in Pliny (XXXVII iiS): banc iaspidem, quarum quae e 
Persis venit atpiiouaa est, utilem esse contionantibus prodiderunt 
<magi so. 

But Pliny's work is not only a help in explaining the papyri: 
it may be used to advantage to vindicate the readings of the 
manuscript against the editors. V III 24 ff. we have the recipe 
of a magical ink, by the inventor Hemerios. The first ingre- 
dient of the mixture is artitmni ^irftins. Now, i^ttyitit is the well- 
known name of a stone, and therefore does not seem to stand 
rightly as an attribute of a plant. For this reason Leemans 
changed ^oytinSor to ^oyu^c, Dieterich to Tpmyklnboi, after what 
he is pleased to call 'simillima ^\ai,iov <tmv^' in P I 343. Howbeit, 
among the seven ingredients there named, the only one in com- 
mon with our prescription is apnimria p>mjkX«mm, all the others 
being different. Now, in accepting his alteration — he puts a 
comma after dMfiinft — we certainly would destroy the holy 

'For this parpoie they aied 'da pain d'orge el du fromage de brebit.' 
SimiUily the papjrrai pmcribei rvpdv aly<.r>u>v 999. The bread, howevei. 
li made of atXiyviar (ep. liUga) • wheat-floor.' 'Aprot /lupbf mi TvpA( hi t^ iprsj 
it the writiDg-material in an 'inicriptio in Turei': cod. Valic.-P&l*tina», 
CXLVI. fol. 316 (w. XVI. XV, XIV, Stevenioa). 

.y Google 


number 7, which to me seems a sufficient warrant for rqecting 
rpwyUndof. No more do I approve of Leemans' conjecture. 
There seems to be no reason why ^trpnt should not be an 
adjective, formed from ^Xdf as uAi^-ntt and the feminine aibi^nt 
are formed from aihi^t. And the following passages from Pliny 
are more than sufficient to prove that, from whatever motives, 
there was a close relation between the flower and red color. 
XXI 164 he says that anemone has florem phoeniciimi aut 
purpureum. Wilamowitz, it is true, restricts pkoeniceus to a 
dark red (Herakles', II 210), as being derived from ^mw. But 
in XXI 165 we read : silvestris (a, sc.) flore pboenicio. banc alii 
errore papaver putant. If this confusion with the poppy-flower 
was at all possible, surely the color must have been nearer to a 
bright red. Finally, in 166 be reports that the herb was put to 
many uses in sorcery, and that it must be handled with a red rag : 
iubent <magi sO adalligari florem panno russeo. I do not 
doubt, therefore, that ^oyfinAit henceforth will be safe from any 
critical attempts. 

The most interesting instance, however, of the threads running 
from Pliny to these papyri is found in CXXI 419 as compared 
with XXIX 81. I print the two passages beside each other: 

niKToXoXafui (sic). Xa/Sar kvkii^- magicae exemplum vanitatis, 

n'ou r^v ufiAiar koI ^IfXc tU i^vfr quippe praeter reliqua porten- 

vav lai tpa^ M irimuuo* Ifparuor tosa mendacia cor eius (bubonis) 

ro Irifuna Kal rout x<ifX"<^f>°^ "a' impositum mammae mulieris 

(Xifov -n^v icapdiar tit ii n-imiiiiijv dormientis sinistrae Iradunt 

ml iviStr M t^k ^x4' <>^i «■' efficere ut omnia secreta pro- 

impura col vayra irot d^toXoy^ii. nuntiet. 

That we have here essentially the same charm is manifest. Nor 
can there be any doubt that in Pliny its older and purer form has 
been preserved. I do not urge the point that this must be so 
because the Latin version is much shorter and lacks the spell of 
the Greek. For there is ample proof to show that in olden times, 
too, the efficacy of a magical action was increased by a 'rhyme' 
(cp. the examples in Heim's Incantamenta Magica, 507-13). But 
the complicated apparatus of the Greek text, with its ointment, 
sacred paper and abracadabra, does not look as if it were an 
original feature. Thus we have here one of the rare instances, 
where even our mutilated and fragmentary materia] permits us to 
see that there was no dull stagnation in magic, but a decided 

.y Google 


development. One might object that the identity of the two 
passages is by no means certain, as the Greek has the hoopoe, 
while the Roman text in the corresponding place has the owl, 
and I might be referred to the quotation from Democritus (Plin. 
XXXII 149) which I mentioned above, in order to prove that 
diverse means were employed to the same end. Plausible as it 
seems, in our particular case the objection does not hold. For it 
can be shown (hat there was a very close relation between the 
hoopoe and the 'bubo.' The word kuho^uw is, no doubt, equiv- 
alent to Kovcov^anoi' (as av\tii Stands for vmiyot V 7, 35),which itself 
must be a diminutive of kovkou^c 'hoopoe,' by some derived from 
the Egyptian.' In Hesych., however, we find the gloss KaurajBdpq 
rXauC and the modern Greek name of the owl is Kinuav^a. Keller 
(in his Lateinische Etymologien, in ff.) connects the first part of 
this with a root meaning a dull sound, the same from which Kf.KKv\ 
also has sprung. And, indeed, if we think of the importance 
attached to the peculiar sound of the owl's and especially of the 
bubo's voice (cp. Schwarz, Menschen u. Tiere im Aberglauben, 
33 fH), this seems extremely probable. Nor need the ^ of the 
gloss and the modern Greek stand in our way, if we remember 
that, in Macedonia at least, |3 is regularly found instead of ^ (cp. 
Bf^tin)). We might therefore incline simply to see here one of 
those mistakes in translating which so frequently occur in Piiny, 
and restore the hoopoe to its place. But this, I fear, would be a 
very poor remedy. For as early as Epicharmus the hoopoe appears 
in company of the owl. Athenaeus (IX 391 d'), speaking about 
the anb^, quotes from Epicharmus : tmimm hionat yXavnic. How 
does the f«o^ come among the owls? As the hoopoe was 
probably not known to the Greeks before the fifth century (Oder, 
545), there are only two possibilities : either imv^ originally was 
the name of some kind of owl and has only later been transferred 
to the hoopoe — this, however, in view of upupa, seems rather 
unlikely — or, granted that in Sicily the bird was known at this 
time, Epicharmus had reasons of his own to class it with the owls. 
If this be conceded — and I see no other way out of the difficulty 
—I have only one explanation to offer : there may have been a 
legend current that at certain periods the hoopoe appeared as an 
owl. Strange as this seems to us, especially as there is no 

'BmgMh (Hier.-dem. Wirbch. IV 1441), wilh whom Oder (Rhein. Mua. 
XL1II 551) leems lo agree. Vanlcek (Etjrmol. Warterbucb, I 161), however, 
compstct Saotkr. knituiha. 

.y Google 


resemblance between (be two birds, with perhaps the exception 
of the crest, it ceruinly could not seem improt»ble to a Greek, 
who firmly believed that the cuckoo during ^x months was seen 
as a hawk (l</)af ). And it cannot be chance that the hoopoe also 
was said to appear as a similar bird of prey, the nipuc (cp. Aris- 
totle h. a. IX 633 a, 17 = Aeschylus, fgm. 304 N"). For cuckoo 
and hoopoe appear as closely connected birds also in German 
folklore (Der Kukuk und sein Kiister, der Hopf; see Grimm's 
Mythology, 681-2}. Nor is it unimportant that these two birds 
are of an uncanny demoniacal nature. For the same holds good 
of owls in general, and more especially of the bubo. In all these 
cases, if Keller and Vanicek be right, the voice of the bird must 
have given rise to the belief connected with it I can, however, 
only ofier this as a mere hypothesis, in the hope that somebody 
better versed in bird-lore than myself may be able to supply the 
missing links. Under all circumstances, were it not for the 
parallel between Pliny and the papyrus, we would be absolutely 
unable to attempt a solution of the riddle offered by Epicharmus' 

There remains still one more apparent discrepancy between 
Pliny and the papyrus to be explained. According to the Roman 
naturalist, the charm must be applied to the left breast, while the 
Greek uses here the word -^v-)^- That this means 'heart,' and 
that Pliny's expression likewise refers to this part, is made almost 
certain by the similar charm from Democritus, quoted above. In 
this the tongue of the frog must be put 'supra cordis palpita- 
tionem.' At first it appears strange that 4vxif should at all be 
used of some part of the body. The widespread belief, however, 
that the seat of the soul was in the heart, which, according to 
Cicero (Tuscul. I 19), was even the most common view, helps us 
to undersund the transition. In fact, instances of tap^a being 
used, where we would expect soul, are too numerous to be 
quoted. But, on the other hand, the use of ^xh ''^r Kafidla is 
rather singular. 1 have not been able to find any undoubted 
parallel. Nearest perhaps comes Pap. Par. 1533 ff. Here we 
read : /i^ iIirA^t atnjf BlA TB* JfifuiTsr, fi^ htk rmr ffXtvpAr, ^ 8id rvv 

tmuiiHv atn^t (sic) (ttik r^ ^x'i^ ""O' » t^ tapdi^. As the eyes 

' The pirenlheiei ■re mine. The woidi Sia r^ i^ix^ "U leem not only 
uosmnmitical. but alio out of place. Probably d. r. ^i. was erroneomlj 
repeated, and then Ihe mi added in order (o give the phiaie some meaning. 

.y Google 


have been excluded, the •^^ cannot be thought to be in them, 
although they were very frequently said to be the seat of the aoul 
(Physiognom. ed. Forster passim ; cp, the index), and although 
the eyes are the proper entrance-gate for love in Greek erotic 
tales (Rohde, Roman, 149, 2, 3). If we, furthermore, observe 
that the enumeration of the forbidden parts begins with the eyes 
and then steadily tendls downwards, we will hardly think of the 
noathts, to which otherwise the ^xA would be very appropriate. 
The concluding words seem to prove that here, too, -^^ stands 
for the heart itself, or, better perhaps, for the breasL In this case 
it would almost literally answer to Pliny's 'mamma sinistra.' 

I have been unable to ascertain whether this use of ^x4 <^i> be 
traced back, as we might suspect, to some one medical or philo- 
aoplucal sect. But it is interesting to quote in this connection 
Sophodes (EL 784 if.) : 

1^ ykp fM4'C«» f^ifh 

^jfTt liKpaior atfuu 

These desultory remarks, I hope, will serve to show that by 
carefully extending similar observations over the whole range of 
magical literature in comparison with the classical writers on 
natural history and medicine,* some light may be thrown on one 
of the sources of this most interesting branch of literature. For 
as yet there is absolutely no secure footing, if one wants to inquire 
into the history of the varied traditions on magic. And such 
comparison may, furthermore, enable us to come to a dearer 
understanding as to what, in all the miraculous and labulous 
tales, really belongs to folklore and what has been handed down, 
even to Greeks and Romans, simply by learned tradition. 

Ernst Riess. 

* A* to medicine, I will Ei*e ■ chance example taken from Harcellni Emplr- 
icnt. B. M. CXXI iSs iroXU jSmiv Sfniaa$af arpo^Oja vivT^tmrra lara Mo 
oMuf yhxlof mi cdiuDvc utriptut rpl^ tni (cp. V. I 31 (.). Thui M. E. 
XXXIIl 66 ut rebu venetiii aptns lii, piper tritum com oleo et melle miicc 
et, cnm coire role*, verenda libi inline; and XXXIIl 35 nncleoi pineot 
■ianio* pDi^atoi nnmero XXX adiecto panxitlo croci limul trito*, li quit ex 
pMii {jXimiot) cyatbo c«tidie per dies IX continnoi bibat, mire penii vilio 
ccleriteiqae Mnabitnr. 

.y Google 

Stray Gleanings. 

Ill tlt« (il'iMttP St-aUgcri (= Corpus Gloss. Lat. V 593, 5) there 
H)i|ii>itt<t H iiliMH Unto m&icuiarius hespitatarius which has given 
\M link truviblr to the pioneer of glossograpby, Loewe. With 
hlH IIN\inl iiit){Hclly> lift MW (hut it must be connected with the 
*/tt*A*»t**»^*^«/t»»iWjt»I' theS«n([«llen8i8 9ia (= Corpus Gloss. LaL 
IV' i\\\ «n^-- wliich iit it|t«in met with, as br as I have been able 
\\\ '^\\\\ \s\\\y ttttiv iit the Ambrosianos (= Corpus Gloss. LaL IV 
>J>,Xs (V) «ml in ll)« t.iber Glnssanim (= Corpus Gloss. Lat V 
r-(, ^?\ HW hi* *tt«iW|«» to |!«t at a correa uoderstandh^ of 
iKia f^A*/- -\'a<A« tiAX-^ l^««« unsu««!s6il i,cC note to Glossae 
Nv^st^it^HHt ,tt eV t tMW h^d th« luckv cluutKC to come across the 
in\t«Hti>\H \\t t^ ttvKt^vi ViV It«>il in Acts 12. so ol'tbc Vulgate, 
*y*xw*>Vi ^/APtd <*«■ t^'M jMi^**- •■*jft.-»&a« ''T^- »beoce it 
(v.>M,(y*a^ YXNt^TRt tSwt Aift.-aw ^o.ieTV!-«^i irw Ktir » aUattve sg. 
>'* i(>* ||'*N'^'*^ *sww ,^'i<A,•i»K■i^ ;>fc l js'^ '.■iij«?^:£ii=&eriain. and, it 

**'v^ t""f'^'-'*f ^'*»vni«.v, V*>k« ■tr-mu.tuia-^iuk :ij i ojCTCpCioo of 
M-titt~i,f,hi,H/it^-^f^ fW,y Jif -rji*!,-! i> .wtivwi«*t ^ L -WW*- but. tiem, 
■1, ,.t».KS >^ i^^t•:^t^tu•Vlt. w -A/flr»trT«i> Vii?" 'ikw.T CBie »£»«« 
ii/n .1. iv -,V W>»t.thfc vt ^ '"^ ', "»!.'' l.'wWMiS */ ihic ii« marr banc 

I *^ !,< V K'N"* Xi-. ■■■.•nr jittpui- Cinwsf. Ja^rieit T>aaa 

V .^^, ; >>, ^^^ . i;ii[, „,,,,., ..-l-w,'^- X". WiM llw i.i(rae- nr rBetlwf 
',>•- .,v. ,■— — . i-.^*n i> iV ,"'■-[■«>■ -Tli'-til r-^Jwwr^ -Hi. 
i:.j.. .i...,n, ,„;„„> >^s*„y,(„, - ,"~--1->.> ^"..1^ . .*, '.^ JT:;. jS 

.y Google 

NOTES. 85 

gloss it would seem evident that Mr. Sweet's supposed Anglo- 
Saxon grundsopa is in reality rustic Latin, and, in fact, as such it 
is exhibited by Loewe, Prodromus, p. 4.18, among his examples 
of rustic Latin, as preserved in the glossaries ; but he points out, 
as a remarkable discrepancy, that the Vossianus, fol. 83, declares 
the word to be Greek : cariilago grumopa grece dicUur, and 90 
does the Erfurt (= Amplonianus Primus) we quoted above. 
For, that gg. stands for graeee is, on the one band, confirmed by 
the express testimony of the Vossianus, and, on the other hand, 
by such unmistakable examples of abbreviation as afforded by 
cetu (^ Kat»q, sc Statin)) gg. tuTuum (sc. Itstamentutn), C Gl. L. 
V 349, 29, and lantemum /anttum (= ^hSv) gg., C. Gl. L. V 370, 
16. We have then, it seems, two conflicting statements as to the 
nationality of grursapa {grutuofia, grundsopa, grundsuopa): 
according to one it is rustic Latin, according to the other, Greek. 
Can they not be made to agree? I think there is a way for it. 
We find cartilttgo glossed by Greek ^^i^poi C= ckondros), C. Gl. 
L. in 403, 16. Now, if this was written ctmdros, and then, as so 
often, g mistakenly put for e (in that way gremmm and eremium, 
grates and craUs are frequently confiised), gondros, and later on, 
by obscuration of to «, gundros may have arisen from ckondros 
(j^rtpor'), and this gundros may be disguised in that grunds, 
grum, grurt of the first part of our gloss to which the glossator 
had reference when declaring the word to be Greek. The 
remainder of the gloss — opa {apd) — is then, I take it, the rustic 
Latin expression for cariilago to which the glossator of Amplo- 
nianus Secuodus has reference when declaring the word to be 
Latin. The original reading of the gloss may then have been 
something like this : cariilago graeee ckondros, opa (?) rusHce 
dicHur. Ckondrosopa having been written as one word, and 
graeee having dropped out in some copy, or being overlooked 
by the scribe, or intentionally left out by one who wished to 
correct the apparent discrepancy of a word being declared Greek 
and rustic Latin at the same lime, this would account for a state- 
ment like that of Amplonianus'. On the other hand, scribes like 
that of the Vovianus may have copied from a manuscript where 
the rmsHce was either intentionally left out or accidentally dropped, 
■o that there the graeee prevailed. However that may be, that 
much is certain, that tlwre is no evidence for Anglo-Saxon 

According to Mr. Sweet (Oldest English Texts, p. 644^)1 the 
An^o-Saxon eoe = cook is already on record in the old Erfiirt 



Glossary, but if we examine the testimony He ofiers for his claim, 
we shall find it just as unfounded in &ct as his gnmtUopa. The 
gloss he designates as No. 387 of the Erfurt is ceaccts cvlinia = 
C. Gl. L. V 354, 38, and he fixes a star to coacas, meaning that it 
is corrupted from cocas, which is on record in the Corpus Christi 
Glossary (ed. Hessels), C 953. This cocas, of course, he takes 
for the accusative plural of cot = cook, but is not that quite a 
gratuitous assumption on his part? If manuscript evidence 
counts for anything, we certainly have to settle with the &ct that 
in the Erfurt there is a culinia coacas which, on the lace of it, 
cannot refer to a cook. For, to be sure, there is a ciiHna meaning 
' kitchen,' and it is just possible that there may have been a gloss- 
ator stupid enough to mix up 'kitchen' with 'cooks,' and we 
might be inclined to take such a view of the case, if the Erfurt 
coincided with the reading of the Corpus Christi cocas. This 
being not the case, it would be contrary to every law of sound 
philological criticism, if we should undertake to correct coacas 
into cocas in order to make it fit in with a more than improbable 
meaning imputed to cocas. On the contrary, it is fixim coacas we 
have to start in order to do the gloss justice. What, then, may 
culinia coacas stand for? Comparing such glosses as C. Gl. L. 
II 575> 53 culiHa fossa coquntatUis (= cotnguinanfts) uel quat' 
Mel; ibid. 118. 45 cultna amtwantt; 119, 50 culina Xmnpttr; 939, 
37 oiriMraror cultna recessum ; 253, 38 a^lpa* culirta ; 106, 45 
conclauis el culina a^Bfwr awo^arot ; III 4S9, 10 = 508, 34 apopaios 
culina; III 313, 37 anartarot culina; II 522, 17 culina sassaloria 
apoualon ; IV 336, 34 cuMa latrina secessum, and remembering 
that a^tpmt is the Septuagint word appearing Matth. 15, 17 and 
Marc. 7, 19 for the secessus of the Vulgate, we shall be justified 
in reading eloacas for coaceu in the Erfurt Glossary and restore 
that also in the Corpus Christi Glossary. As to culinia and 
culina, I should say culinia is the better form, being shortened 
from sUrtulinia {sierquilinia), but culina may have obtained 
later on. Concerning sterculinia, plural oi sterculinium, compare 
the following glosses: Corp. Gl. L V 515, 49 sUrclinia scopili- 
arum (sc. acervus) ; ibid. 515, 52 slerguilinia scopiliarum cervus 
(= acervus). The singular is met with in the following glosses : 
C. Gl. L. V 245. 26 stcrquilinium scupiliarum aceruus: ibid. 
345, 37 slerguiUnium locus slercore plenus. As to the shortening 
of sterculinium sterculinia compare C. Gl. L. V 530, 53 adrem 
(r=ad rem) ad cuniam {= ad pecuniam) ; ibid. V in! a si/anos 

.y Google 

NOTES. 87 

tt^os (i. e. cuSoJ = tucuios) ; ibid. IV 106, 11 lacebra {=.iUf 
cebra) sediufia uel occulta bUutditio, which shortening gave then 
rise to the metathesis caeUbra (= Ucebra, iUecebra) uolupias and 
Ucerba (= lecebra, illecebrd) seductio ; ibid. IV 360, 6 ; also Lesia 
(for Efysia) paradisum IV 533, 37 belongs here. How far these 
shorreniDgs are based on actual usage or whether they are due to 
mere errors, I do not venture to decide here. 

Kluge, in the fifth edition of his etymological dictionary, states 
that Rfiss, the now obsolete German word for honeycomb, is not 
on record in Old High German. It is, however, to be found 
among the Sedulius glosses (Steinmeyer-Sievers Althochd. Gloss. 
II 633, l) : fauas rasun. 

Of obscure origin is, according to the same author, the term for 
'subtle exhalation,' Dttfi. But it would seem the word is con- 
nected with the Anglo-Saxon \yjian = to exhale, which we find 
in Wright- Wiilker 230, 4 (5) spirel a\yft, fetei uel s/emf ; Mone 
387, 42 exaliauit ui apyfhte = exalauU ui a^fte ; ibid. 333, 98 
ankeloTiiium cursorum stencendra renula, ^JUndra. 

Hall (A Concise Anglo-Saxon Dictionary for Students) could 
not make anything of what he found in Wright- Wiilker 385, 3 ; 
so he bodily transferred the gloss kof^lum descrirris; but we 
have only to divide properly Avf^ofMum de scurris, and it 
wiU be clear that we have to do here with the same word that 
Hall quotes as \yU sm. 'spokesman.' As to the etymology of 
the word, I think it belongs to the same root to which ^ei (yell) 
= board owes its origin, the orator as well as the jester being 
people who use the platform or stage as the place in which to 
perform their respective duties, may well have taken their name 
from that ; but it is also pouible that the speaker was called a 
}ele O^le), because he understood the art of handling the fel, i. e. 
speech— -was, in fact, a staefcraefiga. This ^el appears in the 
Wright-Wiilker glosses several times as the interpretation of 
Latin bracUa ; hence it is evident that the goldfel we read W.-W. 
35S, 15 as interpretation of bratheas should be goldyel. \ and/" 
are often hardly to be told from each other. 

Sweet (Old. English Texts, p. 476') would make us believe that 
on the basis of Er£ 340 horuaeg sliig deuta callis, we have to 
assume an adjective horweg ' maAAy' ; but Aoruaeg is = or-uaeg, 
i. e. 'trackless,' German un-weg-sam. 

According to Hall there is an Anglo-Saxon fraene ' oreae' but 
Wright' Wiilker 460, 4, from which he takes it, is Latin frena 

.y Google 


oreae (=aureae). Just so what he quotes from the Haupt 
glosses (No. 496) : /ace ' ciasma ' is Latin ; clasma pace will have 
been the true reading, as is evident from Corpus Gloss, (ed. 
Hessels), C 460 cleuma pax turba; Mone 409, 92 ciasina (= 
clasma') pace mal; W.-W. 504, 27 clasma ma/; W.-W. 376, 31 
clasma clam affHe wed (Ate waera. What the same Hall takes 
from W,-W. 515, 39 wefioesten 'castle' is in reality swa swe 
faesien, as is evident from the lemma quasi arx. 

Otto B. ScHnnTER. 


The derivation of these French words is still an open question, 
and the explanations thus far suggested are far from being satis- 
^tory. It is intended to show here that a plausible solution 
may be found by determining a common etymology for these 
three words, and showing bow, through regular phonetic process, 
tbey were evolved from the same root. 

No reasonable etymon has yet been indicated for boue. Dar- 
mesteter (Diet. Univ.) declares its etymology to be unknown ; 
Cohn does not mention the word ; Korting, alter Diez, proposes 
the Kymric root baw, but such a form could only give an f in 
French. The Old French forms of the word are hoe, later bout 
and also brffue — the last, however, must not be allowed to com- 
plicate the question. It sprang up under the influence of brotut, 
that goes back to a Low Latin bradum or bradhtm (It. brcdo, 
broda, bradeOo), the meaning of the word being 'thick soup of a 
darkish color.' The cause of the contaminadon is therefore 

B9H€, I believe, originates from a Low I^tin form baia. The 
vord is found in Ducange as bMa ; but since the law in French is 
reduction of geminated consonants, bata must also have existed. 
Ttus etymon is also suggested by Scheler : its meanii^ is that of 
mart in French, 'a stagnant pond or a puddle of water.' An 
instance quoted by Ducai^e goes iu towards showii^ the close 
relation existing between the meaning of this word and that of 
'mud': Liber Recognitioaum servitiorum Domini: "Juxta &in- 
giam de la Botta d'Ouraux." 

The word barMtr 'to sphtsh in the water or in the mud' 
strei^thens this opiiufau '/erboiare can be logically admitted 

.y Google 

ffOTES. 89 

from bota (the French form being apparently irregular on account 
of the preservation of (he /; but this I hope to explain saiisfac- 

Bola would regularly give boe > boue, the f«-sound being 
retained for the same reason that it remains in amour, Spoux, 
avoue, etc., viz. on account of the labial consonant that precedes. 

Bnte gave birth to the verb boer or bouer, and a j' was intro- 
duced for the purpose of breaking up the hiatus (cf. badare'> 
baer>bayer). As for the addition of the prefix per, there is no 
need of explanation ; and the initial / changed into j by a very 
simple assimilation — one, moreover, frequent in Low Latin (see 
Probi Appendix : opobahamum, not ababalsamum ; plasia, not 

So the history of these forms would be the following : 

*perbottt,re>parbouer'>parbouyer'> barbouyer. 

Barbcuyer therefore meant 'to besmear with mud,' the literal 
meaning it has still in French; hence, 'to soil,' and also 'to speak 

Now, in regard to the orthography barbouiller instead of 
barbouyer. We must bear in mind that it may be, after all, a 
mere graphic influence exerted either by the French form bouiilir 
or the Italian barbogliare. I have not met with this word in the 
oldest French texts. The earliest example quoted by Littr£ is 
from Calvin, and it is very likely that already in He de France, at 
least, there was confusion between the two sounds of ^ and /, or 
rather that in this territory /had become j', and that we have to 
deal with another graphic representation oi y. 

Coming back to barboler, we understand now why the / was 
kept, viz. to establish a distinction between two words constantly 
used in popular speech. This explanation is a plausible one and 
dears up an otherwise very much confused question of etymology. 
It recommends itself to scholars in this respect, that it finds for 
popular words a popular source without making it necessary to 
account for them by analogies drawn from the completely evolved 
forms of a kindred language— an expedient always hazardous, to 
my mind. 

c-NAso, od. M, >t95. Ren£ de Poyen-Bellisle. 

.y Google 


T. Lacieti Cart it lentm naiiin libri tea. Edidit Adolthus I 

Lipiiie in aedibiu B. G. Teabneri, MDCCCXCtV. tsmo, pp. Izzzi*, 
9o6. m. i.Sa 

For fortr jrear* in Germsnjr Lscrelju hu be«D read and cited bj the 
edition* ol Lachminn ind Betnaji, and, coiu«i)De)illr. the namerau emen- 
dationi made bj Hnnro, ai welt ai the criticinni of a loag line of Getuan 
icbolan like Polle. Winckelmann, Haertchebnann, Chriit. not to mention 
Woltjer and other NetherlaDden, have ne*u heea incorporated into a 
nandard text. For. while Hanro'* edition bai been for many jean, and will 
coDtinne to be. the itandard ediliMi for Eneliib-ipeaking people, it hai had a 
limited circnlation in Germany ; althongh U ii well known, and hai ereo been 
tnntUted, in France. Bochemaeller'i edition {Sude, 1874), with iu nnfor- 
tnnate tbeoiyof compoaition, itanah emeodation*. violent tranipoaitkms and 
nnmeroai erron, ii practically unknown, except to profeued Lnctetian 
schoUrt. Hence, for Germany, at least, a new tecemion of Lncretini wai 
mnch to be detited. Brieget for year* ha* been the Lncretian cootribntoT to 
the yiiitmfirifM and previonily to the pabltcalion of that important jonmal 
bad contributed leveral articlei to (he P M bkgtu ; and he himielf tell* na that 
the preaCDl receoiion repretents 38 year* of continned atndy. Twenty year* 
^o thii edition wai promiied, and, moreover, it waa to inclnde an evegetical 
commentary, which ii *till to come. And when we coniider that Hnnro gave 
practically hi* whole life to Lncretian stady, one ihrinki from the inevitable 


of the work of t«n> incb men 

The prolegomena of B4 page* fall* into two parti : the Gr*l third gives the 
general principles apon which the recenilon is made, and the remainder ■ 
detailed itatement of the changes in the readings, with the authority therefor ; 
for very many of the emendationi were made by other icholara. Unfortna- 
atcly. in the prolegomena the number of the book cited was not placed at the 
top of the page. 10 that reference back from the text to the appropriate pasi^e 
of the prolegomena ii difficult. Bnt the prolegomena as a whole ii the best 
index available for the nnmeroni Lncretian contribution* distributed since 
Lachmann through the philological literature of Gennany and England. 

Brieger's receniion. like Munro'i, is a continuation of the principles laid 
down by Lachmann. The two Leyden mannscripti are the foundation of the 
text. Lachmann was a man 'divini ingenii,' and Bernayi' independence ii 
jnitly praiied. Ai for Mnnro 'ubi crravit, quod non raro accidit, ut homo 
venia dignai esL' Munro differs from Bernay* in 355 places ; he restored the 
MS reading agaiait Lachmann in tss places. Biicger underestimatei Munro's 
knowledge of the philosophy \ one part of the task was nearly finished by 
Lachmann, the other hardly began, he *ayi ; and since Gasiendi, 00 one has 

.y Google 


explained the entire Epicnrean phjiiolog; from the sources \ and so, he con- 
tinaec mat Ctrmatato, 'nihil relinqnebatur nisi ut ipse quid in ea le efficere 
posiem cxperirei.' We shall eagerly awsit his conmenls.r]'. Mnnro's read- 
ings aie occasionally misstated io the prol^omena, and numeioui emendations 
trc passed o*er nithoal remark. The comment* on some rejected readings 
are worthj of Lambinni and Gifanias: M. -wni^ ftrotrte. famm tUgmtter, 
ituftt : it is pleasanter to read in other places tgrtgii./tlid aHdada, It should 
be remembered that taatif of Brieger's readings were known to Munro; 
indeed, tlie great majority ^ for instance, tanixa in II 36S it to Br. ' rectitsime,' 
to M. 'absard.' 

In the onh^raphy Brieger has done well to reject M.'s votartt for vacant, 
Imtmat, rtpratktndert, aHut, adqsu, ni for lu (III 386), laelrv, fmdi; it is 
remarkable that be prints votunlaH (abl.) II 370, aetuu (even if it is triiyllabic 
in VI 576), and dutUmm IV 949 — the last a molt desirable correction. Follow- 
ing Lacbmann, he continues to separate words tike ntntirxm, pratterquam. 
He alwayi prints aera with the diaeresis, as he should, and joini fst to the 
preceding word whenever possible, instead of following the MSS, as M. did, 
who made the juncture only when the MSS served as a precedent. In other 
matters, too, M. is more faithful to the codices, and Brieger's edition is worth- 
less in fine malten of HSS reading. To illustrate, I 743 Br. has quitguam, M. 
fMuqnam ; 753 kaithii, kabAdt ; 7S3 ventnf, veneno ; VI 344 gignier, gigniti. 
But in punctuation, as a whole, Brieger is superior to M.; Munro, like Lach- 
uaon, wrote itifnis rtgit, and scorned the assistance of the humble comma in 
too many placet ; indeed, his traaslation is neatly unreadable for that reason ; 
yet when he wished to advocate a particularly devtoui and thorny interpreta- 
tion, he it lavish with bis points ; Br. justly criticises his a^nftrcil, /raHgtmlHr, 
in arttam, tmurrti etc. VI 156. Br. has uniformly a closer pointing : a good 
example is I to6 tq. There are cases where the interpretation depends on 
the pnocluaiion, as. for iaiiance. IV 991. where Br. joins the ituUm with 
Ittltatt. But in the majority of places Brieger's additional pointing does not 
change the sense. 

It appears that Lucrelian editors have not that abhorrence of a vacuum 
sometimes attribnled to nature. Lachmann indicates 13 lacunae, Bernayi 16, 
Munro 39 and Brieger 70. We cannot feet that even Munro was right in 
finding so many chasms; and with Brieger. even more, the difficulty could 
have been met by emendation ; as, for example, in II 381, where Br. keeps the 
am'MB ra/ww of the MSS, inferring a preceding gap. and rejecting L.'s tah, 
which was accepted by Munro. Sometimes Br. infers b lacuna i.iid brackets 
it with the following vene, as in III 397-8. One cannot discuss all the many 
cases here \ the one at I gis, where the defence is, doubtless, that pud it^trttt 
is there un-Lucretian, I should reject decidedly ; II 477. on the other hand, I 
should retain, and also the oneatV6S4. The bracketing of passages is also 
carried to a great extent, more than seems justified in the recension of an 
author. In the case of a poem confessedly so incomplete as the De rerum 
natata, the marking off of pasties as interrapting the thought is really 
finishing the poet's work for bim, and is bat a degree removed from rewriting 
the poem. Such comments properly belong in the commentary ; and the 
same remarks apply to transposition of pauaget, which is only to be applied 

.y Google 


wben the diitmrbuice ii doe to the copyiu and not to the poet. I cao see, 
thcD, DO jnilifiotioa f<H' Dutkiog off Teriec 6-9 of the fint bo<A. ii<w for much 
of the ihiftii^ iboat in the 4th and 6th book*. 

Althoo^ a comparuon of Brieger'i text with Hnnro'i ihovs changes on 
ereiT peEc, jret Briecei i* nithei conaerratiTe than radkaL Again and again 
he impalea a word ai cormpt, neither himaelf enending nor accepting the 
W£fCitioni of otkcn ; 10 he print* \tpeatm I 315, \Biit»tt^ II 43a, ftnux II 
810, \sm4et in 34 ; I tboold add olhen to the list, like far vit, MS (farlit, 
Br.)k V S6B, where H. read* vitfmt, and, perbapa, aril VI jji for ow of the 
HSS. He hai repeatedl; followed H. in reitoring the MS reading tgainit 
Lacbnann. and the impresiioa ^ich, 00 the whole, he creates ii that of one 
f tJ Mmftim frvgrtJuiOii. Aa foe the emendatioiu differing from Hnnro's, 
which he hai nude or accepted, (ooe are nnqDcstionably good, others jnst a* 
decidedly bad, and leveral donbtlnl — at might be expected in a work of such 
scope and dificolty. Ava for ama IV 1037. /mU ut mtjtttat (Bcntlej') j. B33, 
•Mbj for malm j, 7g6. nftfttt for rrfcrUt V 1373, /<Uk fot/«as> V 1317, I ihoold 
&TM : but fiaub i* flat in III 959 : emmtttn for aatilan VI 793, Lotte'i er m 
IV 110, Pmriwm aui r wt r fmt Jor mm IV 79, and Banj more, haTC little to 
iccomatend them. 

It w** Boit uDfortnnate that Briber, in the nnmbering of hi* line*, had not 
onljr inirodaccd a new nnmbering of hi* own, bat has alio retained the 
naabeting of Lacbnaan aod Beraajn; Brieger's ^ares ate to the left, 
t-achHaan't to the tight, and Bemaft to the left again in italic type ; when 
the number* agree there is bo difficBlty, for then bat one set i* printed ; bnt 
over in the fooitb book, where each editor difleit from the other, there resnlli 
luch an i*tm mtrntii a* Locrctia* never dreamed of. Doobtlet* the large 
Kumber of tjrpographical or other erron is due to this coafnsion ; in the 
piolegomena the qnotatton, while tbeorcticallj according to Br., is sometime* 
by Lm.. toBctimes b; B., and sometime* hj neither. Hoce than once the 
•diloi substitntet in the prolegomena a new reading for that in the text, and 
critical note* are occasionally altoceihet omitted. For example, in IV iioi 
the MSS hare layrwfir-, Br. reads with Lachm. a ni m t mm; and, of coarse, 
havinj* no critical note, doe* not notice M.'s Jkmt Unto. The editor's intention 
was lo state his wianti from Lachmann and Bemay* rather than to give ail 
the MS readings, as Hanro has done. 

A* this edition is a part of the Tenbner Text Series and will probablj be 
citcuUted for many year*, I append a list of corrigenda: Page i, Hanro edited 
L. fiisl in 1B60, not 1866 (miiprint) ; xi, read S*S for 514, 1S4 for aSs. 7S3 foi 
793: x*i. the nmaben are by Lm.; xrii, by Br.; xriii, 741 add 713 Br.; xix, 
TSS add 748 Bt., a* the discussion is given by Brieget's nnasbeti^, VI 1057 
ihuuU be 1067 Lm. or 1058 Br.; the refctenca on p. xix are very puiling ; be 
<;itB> by Lachsann VI 436, comparing imfrw fma^ ttriimm, i. e. 449 Br.; the 
UCkl icfoieoce. I jo^ is to Brieger again (here write tmmu—m), and the second 
lu Uoiuays IV 344, which should be ytl Lm. or 339 Br.; p. xi. 1 169 i* pre- 
tuui«Ulv t» Lm. agaia, altbo^ the veiae is iSS Lm.B^tN Br.,^ile the 
u<\\ u !>> Bt. and a mbpriat a* weU: read I 443 f<>r IV 443 : lVe6shoaldU 
CK.. lY iC«aowldb«t67; ixl. 10)0 ihoald be lOM Br.oi los8 Lm.; xxii, 13s 
.V-«ia be »i». fVimii (cf. 4. 138) ihoald be im fhmit; Bdii, SJO-5J7 »hoald 

.y Google 


be 601-608 Br. or 577-584 Lm,; xxit, 454 is Lm., change to 448 Br.; xx»ii, V 
1013 add Lm.. for 534 read jaj ; VI 334 i* Lin..add 330 Br.; 7^ should be 
7A1, 134 thoald be 139 Bt. or 135 I-m-; u*iii, 48S-503 sfaoald be 4S5-490 (4^7 
tq. Lm.) ; xxiTii, VI 358 should be 34S Lm. or 344 Br.; iixriii, add Lm. after 
577-5S3; xzxix, III 1019 should be loio; 778 thonld be 773, S69 should be 
S64; xl, gtS thoold be 913, 971 "effidalqiu, ftumima id fffiritUptt (GiTpb. 
LnEdnnens.) mutandam non esse docet Muuro io ed. quacta." Bat Br. has in 
the text effidaJqtu fw •iiini', which is the MSS reading, while Mnnro in ed. 4 
prints and defends officiat; xli, 171 should be 169, 1097 should be 1069, ipa 
afaould be ^*u, 'falgel anroqoe Lm. Mr,,' but Lm. readsyw^frx/i ; perhaps Lm. 
here means Lambinas, who read /m^// ; xlii, 'Tcrs. 69-79 etc.,' wholly nnin- 
telligible, unless 55-61 is meant; 103 thonld be 104; xliil, 'conexaqne OQ' 
Lm. and H. gire tinuxa at the reading, 395 should be 305, ' 734 . . . t. infra,' 
there is no infra, as the rene is omitted by Bt. in his teit ; xliv, add Lm. after 
477 ; xlv, 660 should be 680 and note ihonld read 655-659, 6S0, 653 Lm.; xl*i, 
add Lm. after 835 1 iMii, 1001 sq. M. reads i^ Ml amtut m ita, not tfficU, etc.. 
ai is slated, 1030 M. reads nmu, not Hnt ; xlix, M. reads He . . . atmiidant, not 
as slated. 1116 H. claims iif, which is credited to Christ; insert Mr. after 
tvrrUre madit; 1, VI 1057 shonld be 105S; li, H. reads ixfeOilKr, not ftUiltir; 
lii, 443 should be 443, insert B. after tagtu Upitteit, insert Lm. after [474] or 
510, and 475 before tt parilir; liii, VI Bis should hare Lm. added or be 
changed to S05 ; Ut, M.*s reading is misquoted on 655 ; Wi, 875 shonld be 873, 
909-95 shonld be -15; Uii, add Lm. to 117; tviii, lit shonld be no, 113 
should be in, iniert Lm. after 119^140, insert Ln. with figures 97, 330, etc.; 
lii. VI 931-933 is unintelligible, perhaps it should be 933-935 Lm.; Ix, 344 
thonld be 354; Ixi, 511 should be jil; Ixii, 1143 should be 1141 ; lxiii.776 
Brg. shonld be 777 ; Iiit, I 336 should be III 30i {?), 863 should be S73 ; Ix*, 
914 thonld be 919, add Lm. after 1133; Ixvi. VI 660 should be 539 Br. or6l9 
Lm..ihe notegivet the impression that Mtwm was an emendation of L.Huellei, 
whereas it wat read by Nice, and 8 others, III iSt should be 781, on 144 the 
statement of Mnnro'i readings should be reversed, 171 should be 174 Bod Lm. 
added ; Ixrii, iS3 should be 173 ; if, ai seems to be the cue. where verses are 
transposed, the numbering is by Lm., i. e. of the codicet, this principle should 
be indicated ; 384 thonld be 374, 33S should be 338, on 386 ruptral thonld be 
trnftral; liviil, 53B tbonld be 539; Ixix, 514 should be 513 Lm., 549 should be 
543. 67s ibonld be 67S ; Ixx, 75s thould be 74 8, VI 51 8 shonld be II 51S; Ixxi, 
977 shonld be 966, 1035 should be 1036 ; Ixxij, 1077 should be 1069, add Lm. 
after 1131 ; laxiii, 1353 add OQ after pannt, 1303 should be (1315 Lm.) not 
(1313), which is B.; Ixaiv, on 1441 tq. insert Mr. before the English quolstion ; 
V 613 shonld be 60S ; bcxv, M. reads tigna, not Hgna, the temma toi ihould be 
inserted ; Ixxri, 136 shonld be 137, 340 metdmmta, the lest has m»ntantHia ; 
bxvil, 393 should be 383, III 668 should be 698; Ixxix. 771 is given no note, 
although Br, readi inftstae agiinit MSS, L. and M.. infill* ; Ixxx, B37 ihould 
be 833 ; Ixixi, insert lemma 900 before lapii, " [93B] Lm. B." unintelligible ; 
R. rejects 935 (93S Br.), which Lm. omits attogeihei ; lixxiii, 1003 Insert Mr. 
ifter the third reading, 1097 insert Mr. afler Britanni, which should be spelled 
Britlanni ; Ixxxir, 1167 inuntit Mr., change Mr. to B.; M. reads meriani with 
Lm.; insert 1195 for lemma before hoc, etc., 1374 shonld be 1373. 

, Google 


The footnote* nndeT the text are inconiiitent : loiaeliiiiei the lefcTencei tie 
to Lachm., lometimei to Br.: p. I03, V 931-933 should be VI 933-935 Lm.; 
p. 134, 731-790 it Br. (7B4-793 Lm.); p. 146, %^\ ihonld be 570 Lm.; p. 147. 
596 = sS4, not 5S3; p. tjs, the leference leemi to be to Lm.; p. 1J7, "964 = 
^; 966 -sfK^; 967 = 9^^ et 91$^ uniniellieible ; if italic* lefet (o Benurs, 
it should read 964 Lm. = 96^; 966 Lm. =qb3\ 9S7 Bt.s^Met ^dJ; p. 161, 
1114 iq. i> Sr. = //^J, not 1131', the rcmaioder of the note ii nnintelligible ; 
p. ibB, ' [l3Sft-t3S9] = 1459, I4S3.' the Rnt ntinben are Lm.. the second B.; 
chance to I4S4~S Lm.; p. 173, "[{6 sq.] =98 sq. (90 iq.)." this should be SB 
H). Bi. (90 sq. Lm.); p. 17S, add Lm. after IV 17a sq.; p. iSi, [383-385] = 85- 
87, the 6r(t namben are Lm., the tecond Br., p. 19S, [9SS iq.] = 993 sq., the 
latter number is B.; change to 996 Lm. 

Text; I 339 attimaquae ihoald be aOemaqtu; I 404 prigrarU should be 
ftgrarii; II 330 MMrm should be xwoxw; II 397 /orniMM ihoald be /imMnm; 
II 1165-70, the 6gares 1168 and 1173 should be italicited ; III 172 tltai>u» 
for at Utmm (?) ; III 551 HetnUur . . . tabc should be hnqutmtur . . . UM by p. 
liii; III 7B1 salte should be I'a altt bj lemma p.W; VI 1116 it inconsistent 
with the critical note in the proleg. Add the changes desired by the editor in 
the proleg.: Ill 594 fadt for ttrpart; III 8it fit for iit\ V 33 ftlagi^me for 
ptlagtqtii ; V S39 qtia for ftiae. 

Lei no man hereafter try to edit a text with three sets of numbers. 
Uhitrsitt o> Cuitoaiajt. WtLLtAM A. HlUULL. 

The Saturnian Metre, by W, M. Lindsay. American Journal of Philology, 
XIV, Not. 3 and 3. 

The July and October numbers of this /oumal for the year 1893 contained 
■ valuable paper upon the Satarniati Mitrt by Mr. W. VI, Lindsay, In view 
of the fact that Lindtay't theory of the Satnmiao metre hai been mentioned 
with approval by some of our best technical grammars (c. g. StoU, Hittoritche 
Grammatik, p. 3a) and school -gramm an, and since in many quarters it ia 
evidently felt that Lindsay's article has settled a much-vexed question, it it 
worth while to examine his results with some care. 

The arficle in question it comprehensive in its character. It includet the 
text of the Saturnian fragments, a discussion of certain important matters 
connected with accentuation and quantity, a criticism of the quantitative 
theory, and a statement of Lindsay's own theory of the Satnmian metre, with 
an application of his principles to the extant venei in that metre. 

I may say at the outset that, at it seems to me, the merit of Lindtay't 
ditcuision lies in hit method and in the fact that he bringt into the foregroand 
certain important elements of the Saturnian verse which have heretofore 
either been entirely overlooked or iniufGcientty considered. 

The author's investigation of word-group accent, of primary and secondary 
accent, and of certain archaic quantities cannot be neglected by any one who 
it teeking a correct solution of the problems involved in the Satnmian verse. 
I do not propose, however, in this article to ditcnis Lindsay's conclusions 
upon any of these points, nor to consider the general merits of the quanlit*- 

.y Google 


tire DT accentoal theory of the Satnmitn vene. bat I shall confine my atten- 
tion to the general conclusions (pp. 305-38) which Mr. Lindia)' leachei as the 
remit of hi* ioTeitigation. 

Two points, however, may be noted before passing to oar mbjecl proper 
Id the JahrbDcher f. klass. PfaiL XIX, Dr. Reichardt advocated the qnantita- 
live theory of the Sacumian *ene. The essential part of his theory, as it 
teemed to me, lay in his hypothesis that "any fio»l syllable, whether looK 01 
short, may form an arsu." Upon this view Lindsay remarks (p. 165) : " Thii, 
I mn*t confess, seems to me something very like a yielding of the point at 
issue. If the quantity of a syllable matters so very little in Satomian verse 
that any short final syllable may asinme the part of a long syllable, the natural 
inference is that the qnanttty of syllables, at any rate of final (i.e. unaccented) 
syllables, is not the main factor in the Saturaian metre." This discussion of 
Reicbardt't view does not seem to me quite latisfactoiy. 

On pp. 931-3 of his article Reichardt calls attention to the fact that the 
Sntnmian verse was used almost exclusively for hymns and religious formulae 
and for epic poetry. The peculiarly serious purposes for which it was used 
make it probable that the verse was rendered very deliberately, with a pause 
after each word. Reichardt maintains, therefore, that the admission of a short 
fin^ syllable in place of a long one under these circumstances is similar to the 
nte of a short final syllable instead of a long one in caesura, which even 
Ennius allows. It should be remarked also, in support of Relchardt's view, 
that it is the thon fatai syllable which takes the place of a long one. and that 
wbil« there are 63 such cases in extant Satumian verses, there are only two 
cases (vtt. XiKtiu and mrv) where the apparent lenglheningof a short medial 
lylUble gives the adherents of the quantitative theory trouble. It seemed 
desirable to call attention to Lindsay's discussion of this matter, for, since the 
acceptance of Reicbaidt's hypothesis upon this point would remove the most 
serions objection to the qoantitative theory, the hypothesis deserves a full and 
impartial statement. 

One other point by way of introdnelion. On p. 305 of hit article Lindsay 
states the rule for the accentuation of Satumian vene which previous adher- 
ent* of the accentual theory' have laid down, and which Lindsay himself 
accepts. After stating the principle, he remarks: "But doe* this rule com- 
prise the whole scheme «f Satumian versification? Does the metre, the 
poetical element of the line, depend merely on there being three incidences 
of stress in one half, and two in the other, beginning with the first syllable of 
the line? If it does, what would prevent a large number of sentences in, let 
n* aay, Cicero's speeches from possessing Satumian metre? The opening 
sentence of the First Philippic, for example : Antequam di repiiblica. | pitrc* 
conscrlpti, Dfcam-ea quai dic^nda | hoc-t^mpore irbitror ! I There must surely 
be some other factor beside this. I contend that there are two others," It 
becomes doubly desirable then to examine the two new factors to which Mr. 
Lindsay calls alteiltion, because, unless they are accepted, the accentual 
thcoiy a* at present stated i*. in the opinion of it* most brilliant advocate, 

The two new factors or principles of which Mr. Lindsay speaks, he stales as 
follotn: "Tkt mtrmai nianitr of tj/tloNis is f im tit Jirtt lumutUh, 6 im t/u 

.y Google 


Itt»ild." ud "Afttr Ikt firil twfful ef tie HfU, a rtguiar aiUnuUUn of areen/tti 
rhythm iiieugkl.a ritiHg atcenl being feOawtd by a falRng and vut verm." The 
tenn 'falling' accent ii nicd by Mr. Lindiay lo describe the pTODDncUtion of 
• word like Jdbtatt, mdlum, Afa/ku, ' miDg' txcttit to iticiib« ihM o( Mrtfih, 

Let ui teit (he truth of the fini principle br an examination of the extant 
SatnTnian Tenet. Mr. Lindsay gives 144 of these in his paper, but in the case 
of 33 words are lacking or elte the metre or text is uncertain. I shall therefore 
confine my attention (o the 133 verses given on pp. 313-31. I hare alto, for 
the sake of fairness, based my ioveiiigalion upon Mr. Lindsay's own text. 
The resoli* niaybe stated very briefly. In these 133 verses the Grst hemistich 
has 6 syllables in 13 caaes, S syllables in 33 cases, 9 syllable! in 7 cases and in 
5 other cases there are S syllables in the first hemistich, if we do not conso- 
naniiie a vowel, admit syniiesis or adopt some similar method of explanation. 
Disregarding these % cases, however, in 43 cases oat of 133, or in 34 per cent, 
of the verses, the nnmher of syllables in the first hemistich is not 'normaL' 
As for the second hemistich, it has 5 syllables in 3i cases, 7 syllablet in 17 
cases, 8 syllables in 3 cases and there is t donbtfal case, i. e. in 40 cases, or in 
33 per cent, of them, the number does not conform to Lindsay's standard. 
The stale of things is little better if we confine our attention to the Scipionic 
inscriptions, which, as Mr. Lindsay says, "may be taken to be free from 
irreguUritiet due to want of education and ignorance of metre, and from 
errors of the sculptor,' and which have come down to us without textual 
change. The Scipionic epitaphs contain 35 verses. In 8 cases the first 
hemistich has a greater or less number of syllablei than 7, and in 7 cases the 
number of syllables in the second hemistich is not 6. The slate of things is 
of course much worse if we lake the entire verse as a unit made up of two 
parti, the one containing 7 syllables and the other f>, and compare onr result* 
with Lindsay's first principle. When tested in that way there are but 49 
normal venes out of 133. 

As will be seen from the statistics given above, there are 30 case* in the first 
hemistich and 19 in the second, or 49 in all, where the number of syllables is 
too great. Upon this fad Hr. Lindsay remarks (p. 306) ; " This normal nnmher 
of syllables for the two hemistichs is apparently departed ftom in those case* 
where the poet avails himself of Ihe license of substituting two short syllables 
for an accented syllable, e. g. in the first hemistich, sOMgit imne Lnudiiam, 
and tomelimes in the second, e. g. tifltibus opirtis ; though chat the departure 
is more apparent than real we see from the fact that a short syllable after an 
accented syllable tended to luller syncope in Latin, e. g. ttagit from mrrigH, 
eftianu from ffilwHKS, eaUus from calidus, so that a short accented syllable 
followed by another short syllable would not fall on the ear with much more 
force than a single syllable," The resolution of an accented syllable into two 
ikarl lylUliles has a suspiciously quantitative ring about it ; but passing over 
thai fact, one cannot fail 10 be surprised at the freedom with which resolution 
is admilleil. If 1 am not in error, there are 53 resolutions in 133 verses, and 
although Mr. Lindsay says (p. 306) that "two such resolutions of syllables are 
not permitted in the same hemistich and probably not in the same line," a 
double resolution must be admilted into the first hemistich of tv. 16, 17, 63, 

.y Google 

Xer/EffS AtfD BOOK tfOTKBS. 9/ 

67 and 133, nntesi the text be emended ; bat still more remaikabic is the fact 
that in 18 of the 53 cases resolution takes place in the pretonic sjrllable, e. g. 

Gnalnod pitre pr^nitas | f6ttis-ait sipl^nsqae 

FidTle Ticteis sUpfrises | gl^riam mai6nim. 

Ut. LindisT hat noted the fact (p. 306) that tesolatioo occurs ia the cue of 
Ihe pretonic ijllable, but in view of the fact that one-third of the inttances of 
molation occnr in the case of that syllable, the point is a very serioni arga- 
meat aeainsl his theory. 

Of the 33 cases in which the number of syllable! is too few, 6 may be 
eiplained away, bat the other 17 must stand, it would seem, aa simple vati- 
aiiona from Mr. Lindsay's standard. Two inatancei of this sort are the first 
hemistich in 

Ducin afaip(cio| impjrioqu(e) eius 

and the second hemistich in 

DMel Timpestitcbus | aide meretod. 

Mi. Lindsay's second principle i« * somewhat difficult one to test, because 
(he question whether the rhythm ii alternate or not depends of course upon 
the accentuation, and the accentuation depends, in luiD, upon the word 
Enraping. Before considering Mr. Lindsay's word-groupt it may b« noted 
that his syatem of ■Itemate rhythm is at the best far from being an exacting 
one. Aiietnate rhythm does not begin until " after Ou fint too fuf" ».'aA eren 
then modifications ate possible; the typical fontii being either x'x(,) x'x,xx'x | 
x'tx. ii'x (sometimes | xxi'x, x'x) or l'x(,) x'x, x'xx | xx'xx, z'x (with modifica- 
tion* of the second hemistich, e. g. ix'x, x'x). 

Even with these allowances the rhythm is not alternate unless we accept 
cenain woid^raups in support of which, as it teems to me. we should require 
very strong evidence before we can accept them. The truth of this fact is 
evident from the italicized word-groups in the following verses ; 

M6rs peif^cit ^jo) -«/■/»«</ 1 dmnia bt^ia 
Qaoiei nita defecit | ni»-henti honiSre 
Ne qua iritis honore | fufZ-miiiMt-ji/manditQ* 
Tii-qnae mM-narriUo\ omnia dis<!rtim 
Qnindo dies adu^niet | fuem-fre/dU M6rt(a) est 
Quamde tniie sa^uon | uis-tl-etd sunt-m^ae 
Igitnr d jmum C/A*:):/-jvr | prae-paaiSre frixit 
fmmortiles mortiles | H-for/l-fai Aite. 

More instances of a similar character might be added if it were necessary. 
In most of these cases, if we are nnable to accept the word-groups suggested, 
the rhythm ceases to be alternate, to say nothing of the fact that the number 
of accents in a hemistich becomes aboormal, 

I woald only say, in conclmion, that, in view of the considerations briefly 
stated above, Mr. Lindsay does not seem to me to have proved the existence 
of his two new factors, and that while the methods which be has used in the 
discussion give u> hope of a solution of the problem some day, that solution 
has not yet been reached. 

Fkank F, Abbott. 

.y Google 


Calnllu. Ediled bj Euns TsnsDKU. Hkkuu, Rich Profewor of L«tiii 
in WmU^mi UniT«itit]r. Gidd & Co., Bottan and London, 1S93. 313 pp. 

Thii Tolamc U from cierj point o( view* welcome ■ddition to the 'College 
Series of Lalia Aalbon.* I beliere, moreover, that it enjort the dittioction 
of being the fint complete Calallai edited bf an American icholar. Profetsor 
Merrill hai performed hii taik, if to edit a poet as charming ai Catnllas maj 
be called a laik, with a care and thoconghneu that show him to be abreait of 
modem tcholanhip and fnlljt alire to the reqniretnenli nowadays demanded 
of the editor of a classic. Criticism of a work, on the whole, 10 well done 
will, of coarse, rest laigeljr upon those differences of opinion in such matter* 
that are ai allowable as they are likely to alwap exist. 

The book consist* of an Inliodaction (jo pp.), followed (pp. 1-314) by the 
text, under which, in accordance with the excellent plan of the series, is the 
commentary. Then comes (pp. 3I5-6]) a brief account of the sources used in 
the coustitution of the text, followed by a critical appendix, and lastly (pp. 
s6>-73) indices of proper names and of the notes. 

In the matlci of text the editor ii. od the whole, cooserratiTe. He sides 
with Baehreas, Benoisi, Thomas and Schwsbe in the "conriction [cf. hi* 
pref.] that only eecUeei Sangrmiaiumii (G) and Oxmietuii are of ultimate 
authority in dctertoiaing the readings of the lost ctdtx Vfrmtniii (V), and 
that the readings of the other known MSS (except T) that differ from those of 
G and O have the value of conjectural emendationn merely." Whether this 
view is altogether tenable, though it need not be discussed here, is at least 
open to areument. Many will support Ellis (Class. Ret. S. 3S) in his indorse- 
ment of K. P. Schulie'i view (Catullus, Baehrens-Schnlze, Leipsrg, 1B93, p. v) 
that '■ no one to-day can think that all MSS except G and O are to be thrown 
■Mde as useless." HowCTcr that may be. Prof. Merrill prepared himself for 
this portion of his task with especial care, having made a complete transcript 
of in July, iSBg, and compared it on the spot with the collations of Eilia 
and Scbwabe. Immediately following his preface is a facsimile of a page of 
O (63, 8S tt. to 64, 34), reduced one-third in siie to 6t (his edition. The 
Critical Appendix exhibits "in full the readings of G and O, with the omis- 
sion, however, of such as present only unimportant orthographical peculi- 
arities." The re^^ings of G rest on the published collations of Ellis and 
Schwabe, together with the facsimile of the MS published at Paris in 1S90, 
A selection from the corpus of editorial conjecture is also given. 

The Introduction (50 pp.), after a few remarks upon early lyric poetry at 
Rome, takes up the life and works of the author, dealing successively with 
dates of birth and death, family and circumstances, Lesbia, journey to 
Bithynia, relations with Caesar, poems, friends and foes, metres and prosody. 
Of course, considerable difference of opinion must always exist as to what are 
the proper topics to be taken up in the introduction to a book of this sort and 
how completely each should be treated. Profetsor Merrill's disposition- and 
discussion of the various subject* mentioned are clear and concise, as they 
are bound to be in a work of this sort, and as complete perhaps as is possible 
within his limit of fifty pages. Any further extension of iatrodnctoiT matter 
may have conflicted with his own views, with the plan of the aeries, or with 
both. If I venture to criticize that view at all, it is becaute I am thoroughly 

.y Google 


ID trnpathf witli thoM wh» hold thnl the inrrodactiOD, certainlj to ■ poet 
like Catnllni or Horace or Propertiui, while deu and cooeUe, dioald alio, 
within reasonable limiti, be exhamtive, dealing with every aide of the poet's 
derelopment. t believe that inch an introdoction is of the {leateit benefit 
to itndenti snfficientlj advanced to b« leadine these aothor*. It is, of coarse, 
granted noder all conditions that the initractor inpplements in daily teaching 
the book tbxt he Dies : no instmclor is worthy the name who does not eive off 
in commeni and saQ-esiionmDcb that no textbook conld be expected lo contain. 

My criticism of Professor Merrill's introdaction woold dierefore be directed 
at thote omitaion* which arise directly from the too ptM brevity of it The 
aims and tenets of the Catnllian ichool receive a passing rcfereace here and 
there (e. g. pp. 13 and 33), but a fuller treatment, bringing out clearly the 
history and significance of this most important literary moTemenl, the ped^^ree 
and affiliations of the varioss departments in which Catallol and bis friends 
tried their skill, wonid, it seems Eo roe, be desirable. The same might be said 
of the section* on metre and prosody, the treatment of which has been reduced 
to the smallest possible compass. A clearer and more complete statement of 
Catnllns' position in the history of Roman verse technique wonld, t believe, 
be an improvement. 'Brevity' is not always 'very good,' for while we arc 
told on p. JO that Catnito* allows himself greater freedom in the maniifement 
of his metres than either Lucretius or the later poets, that "his graceful 
coiDiDand of rbfthm was fat removed from the fixed formalities adopted by 
the Augnstans," we are not informed what those freedoms were or what their 
significance. Moreover, in tiaing the terras 'graceful command,' etc., Professor 
Merrill is of course thinking of CatuUns as a writer of svrnc/ mimtti (cf. p. 33), 
although he does not say so. That Catnllos' hexameters in the 64th could be 
similarly compared with Vei^l's, or his distichs in 65-6B with those of 
Tibnllns and Propertios. the editor would be the first to deny. 

Professor Merrill, as he tells ns on p. 33, omits from his introdaction any 
detailed conaidcratian of the diction and ityle of CatuUiis. It it probably for 
the sane reasons that he says little of CatuUns in his four distinct rAles as a 
poet of lyric, epic, elegy and epigram. So, too, he docs not deal with the 
poet's debt to his predecessors oi his influence upon those who followed him. 

The commentary is admirably fitted to the purpose of the book. It is 
careful, tborongh. appreciative, and leaves nothing unexplained where an 
eiplanation is possible or desirable. In many instances the editor's notes are 
Bnnsnally apt and felicitous. 

Profeasoi Merrill's statement at 3. 14, that Orcns is " here not the god of the 
underworld, but the underworld itself," rests upon a number of well-known 
passages. It does not seem to me, however, that any of them plainly run 
coanter to the national conception of Orcns as a person. 'Oreo' is a well- 
known character in the modem Italian fairy-tales, and has remained ptactic* 
ally unchanged since the days of Catntlus. The habitual use of mittUtu (3. 16) 
with reference to the dead gives sdded point to Martial's "Centum miselU 
iam valetc qnadrantes" (3. 7. i). To the note on 3. iS might be added lav. 
6. S. The metaphor in ctmala tilva (4. 13), common in Latin, is, as is well 
known, unwelcome In English. It Is interestinf , however, to ohserve bow 
Milton has manned it (cf. P. L. 4, 136 and 333). Certainly the editor is right 

.y Google 


in prefeiriD^ fabt (14. t6) to mht. I cannot di*eit mjatXK aX the impiettioa 
that lrtwiiila{n. [9)mcmns Dothing fBrtlier here Uisn the rockins motion lo 
often nied in cncoBneiag the ilnmben of > imall child. While wtmltat ii ui 
adjectiTc coBBKmly used with^lrmMi (cf. Ifacrob. 7. la. 9), it almott leen* 
as though the gioaping "millet vetnli pner," etc {i^. i), wu meant to 
*DK"t ^^ pictnre of the htij helping the old gentleman aboat the dining- 
room. 1 cannot believe thai there is any reference to Pompejp in the evMya of 
39. 13. If PoMpejr ever deicended to nich a frivolity we can well imagine 
the grin of utiibction with which he read this poem through lo the veTy U«t 
line, which, with iti mdden and disconcerting "«ocer geoerqne, perdidiitia 
omnia," was a cot acToa the face for which he wai totally unprepared. In 
using viitra CatnUnx i«te>ded. it *eem« to me, that the readei should be 
thinking of Mamarra and Caesar rather than Pompey and Caeiar. I am not 
sure that I ^aite nodeistand the note on 34. 14. li it in connection with her 
office as the 'light -bringing' that Diana came to be r^arded as a goddess of 
birth 7 I shoald be inclined to think that the connection was. at least partly, 
luggeited by the obseired coincidence of the lunar month with the tatammi* 

Of course, "poppies (6t. f^j) are not always described as flame -colored," 
any more than roses or violets or any other flower of which several varieties 
eiisl. On the difficult Attic poem the notes are unusually clear and satisfac* 
tory. The cnrions superstition mentioned at 64. 376 is one which in my boy- 
hood I have often beard slated as a fact, but I never remember seeing it 
anywhere in literature except here and at the passage of Nemesianus which 
Prof. Merrill cites (cf. Ellis for another passage in point). The question as to 
whether the Callimschean original of 66 was written in all simplicity or is a 
piece of half-ironical persifiage like Pope's Ruft ef tht Lttk, and the generally 
received theory of a distinci and complicaied plan of slrophic anangement in 
6B. are neither of them mcuiioned by the editor. 

On p. 17 I observe as a slip of tbe pen ' Phalaecean' for ' Choliambic' 
We have much to thank Professor Merrill for in this eacellent edition of a 
most delightfiil poet. Among the mauy other good things he has done, he has 
given us the complete text of his author. This is especially giaicfal to those 
who are opposed to the modem mutilation of a classical poet, whether the 
process be one of 'lelection for the use of schools' or 'Bowdleriiation' for 
' family reading.' A boy sufficiently mature and well trained to be reading 
Catullus, who at the same lime will be injured by having access to his 
freedoms of expression, is scarcely worth the saving. 

KlUV F. Shitb. 

Pauly's Realencyclopldie der claisischen Altectumawissenschaft. Neue Bear- 
beitung Dnier Mitwirkung lahlreicher Fachgenossen herausgegeben von 
GaOKO WiisowA. Driller Halbband : Apollon-Artemis. Stuttgart, }. B. 
Metzlerscher Verlag, 1S95. 

The original edition of Pauly's classical encyclopaedia, issued from the 
press of the same Stuttgart publishing house which has now begun an entirely 
rewritten edition of it in ten volumes of 1440 large ocuvo pages each, has the 

.y Google 


pbenomeaml record of a work of refereDce that has maintained an nnquestioned 
■npremac]' in iti line for more than half ■ cenlurr. Its one English rival, the 
•eries of classical dictionaries edited by Dr. William Smith, is planned less 
distiDctively for the requiiements of professional scholanhip. Its only French 
one, the great Dictionnaire des anliquit^s giecques el lomaines,' projected by 
Datembere and continued by Saglio and Pottier, remains but half finished. 
The prioress toward completion of the ambitious Frencb work and of the 
equally ambitious German one in its revised form will now wear the aspect of 
a toleiably fair international handicap match of classical scholarship. 

Professor Witsowa, of the University of Marburg, who is the editorial head 
of the Gennan publication, it favorably known from his many learned and 
critical conliihutioDs to philol<^ic:Bl, archaeological, and mythological science, 
and also ai an editorial collaborator on Roscher's still incompleted lexicon of 
Greek and Roman mythology. In the present semi-volnme, (he mythological 
interest predominates, in virtue of the important articles called for under the 
heads of AptUen, Ares, Arga and Argtitatilai, and ArUmii, enough' to ju«tify 
the mnemonic emphasis which the (ille-page lays on this elemeDt of the 
alphabetic area covered. It is natural to turn to the keyword articles first. 
Both are by Professor Wernicke of Halle. In the original Panly the discus- 
*ian of Apollo occupied but six pages and that of Artemis (sai vtte Diana) but 
two. Wernicke devote) Gfly-thiee pages of equal siie to Apolbn and to 
ArtnKii fifty-two, presumably exceeding his allowance by the odd pages, after 
the custom of encyclopaedia contributors. An increase of more than one 
thousand per cent, in the space and relative importance conceded to mythology 
is more than can be laid to a double personal equation. Obviously, the 
subject-matter of classical mythology and the hypotheses which attempt to 
account for it all have not only multiplied beyond measure, bat have also 
risen to a plane from which they commanH greater respect and attention on 
the part of scholarly minds. We are far along indeed from the fossiliied 
allegoriiings that commanded the confidence of our grandmothers in their 
•choolgirl days. Wernicke, for instance, denies outright, as expressing prim- 
itive Greek faith, both the virginity of Artemis and her sisterly relation to 
Apollo. The lunar character and the attributes of the chase with which later 
cLassieal poeiiy and art invest her he explains as erroneous conceptions due to 
the fortuitous stsociation of the Peloponnesian and autochthonous Artemis 
cnlt with the Hellenic cult of Apollo in its Ionian form. He admits a primi-. 
live Greek moisture and vegetation goddess called Artemis, and assumes that 
her cult had solvency enough to absorb into itself the notions entertained lit 
regard to a swarm of other fell and forest, flood and field, flock and family 
fairies. Only thus, be holds, can we account for such contradictory elements 
in the originally simple character of Artemis as the aggressive virginity 
ascribed to the goddess whose special sphere of ingcrence in human atfairs is 
the conducting of parturition to good issue. In short, Wernicke advocates a 
doctrine very akin to Andrew ling's craiy-quilt theory of myth, not from 
having paid great attention to the English scholar's work, but from sheer 
(oTce of evidence and evolutionary modes of reasoning. Apollo develops 
under bis hands from an earth-spirit — akin, presumably, to the returning dead 
that have so laine a place in folklore, although Wernicke does not point this 

, Google 


oot — into ■ god of T^eUtion, of teuoni, of flocks, of vildcceahirei. of hamu 
joQlh, of gjiBnutici, aod of comb«t. Again, along another line, tbii earth- 
daemon become* an oracnlar spirit, a god of oath* and coreoantt, a purifier 
and Mviot, a dirine nnuiciao and dancer. Host closelj allied to Apollo the 
earth-ipirit ii the death-dealing Apollo of nua; enlii and legend*. Thii 
aspect of the god is cnHoaily combined with the bo^-loTing and athletic 
Apollo in the Lalconian itoiy of the beautiful Hyakiothos inadrertentl^ slain 
by Apollo's quoit white the two are engaged in gynnastic sport in the floweiy 
meads of Amfklai. Indeed, the floral or regetal god also appears plainly 
enough in this storr. Co-ordinate with (be cbthonic Apollo is the Delphiniao 
or marine Apollo who appears in the form ofa dolphin in the Homeric hymn, 
to whom Ionian fishennen were accustomed to praj for a good catch, and who 
at Tarsos wielded Poseidon's trident. As protector of colonial enterprises, the 
god exhibit* an equally Neptunian character in many instances Wernicke 
places here his exploits as a builder. I should myself prefer to derive the cult 
of Apollo, regarded as a leader and establisher of communities, from hii old 
pastoral aspect ai furtherer of the growth and enterprises of human youth no 
less than of the increase of flocks and herds. The leader by land and the 
leader by sea appear very closely related in the Homeric hymn. The Apollo 
of templed hills and jutting promontories may perhaps belong here. Oor 
author puis him midway between his cbthonic and marine aspects of the god. 
Was the notion of a guiding deity sufficient to attach his worship to the kerb- 
stones placed at doorways and Btreet-cornen, or must we connect this petre- 
faction of the Apollo cult with the pilUr idols of the Phoenician sun-god 
Melkaith-Herakles, which his worshipperi placed in roadways and at temple- 
entrances, as, for example, that of the sanctuary which Phoenician artisan* 
erected for Solomon on Mount Zion of Jerusalem ? There is yet ■ puttie to 

It seems to cost Wernicke a itru^le to comment in conclusion on the 
recognition of a solar deity in Apollo by the ancient*. He diimisaes it aa a 
*peculati*e heresy, insufficiently justified by the outdoor and hilltop asaocia- 
tions of a primarily chlhonic cult, intimating that it may perhaps be traced to 
the Orphic allegorizing of the sixth century B. C. Nor will he, with Roscher, 
admit an Indo-European origin of the Apollinic religion. 

Eight bright stars of Greek literature, science and criticism are ably 
discussed in this semi-rolume by CrusiuE, Hultsch, Cohn, Kaibel, Gercke and 
von Jan, vii. Archilochos of Faros, Archimedes, the Alexandrian critic* Ari*- 
taichos, Aristonikos and Aristophanes, the comic poet Aristophanes, Aristotle, 
and his pupil Ariitoienos of Tarentum, the founder of Greek musical science. 
We can barely slop to note b> a curious piece of historical information from 
an unexpected source. Crusius's dating of Archilochos by means of Oppola- 
hofer's determination of the noon iotar eclipse, to which (he poet refers 
impressively in an extant fragment (No. 74, Bergk), as having been visible to 
inhabitants of Parot on April s. 64B B. C. Dunckcr's conjectural date of 660 
B. C. for the poet's death, and the no better fortified guesses of other hiitorian* 
and literal^ historians, fall to the ground by this remarkable computation. 
Crnaiu* ii excusable for not rererring to the supposed bust of Archilochos, the 
Identification of which teaii only on a plausible conjecture of Viiconti's. It 

.y Google 


ii itnnge that th« (liver cnp found near Ponpeii lut winter and now in Parii, 
OD which a tkeletOQ intcribed APZIAOXO£ appean in «>nipan7 with thoie of 
other foretime poets, should have escaped him. 

The articles latldttebira and mrithmtda bj PDchdein and Hnltsch, the 
former dealing la^elir with VitraTins, will commaiid the attention of apieci- 
•listi. Some multiple entries give ■ high opinion of the reriieTi' tboroDghnets 
and induitrjr. Sevent? historic characters, forty-six literaiy one*, and eleven 
artists are initably diicaued nndei Ap^amn. Under Aqtiat competent 
experts in ancient gec^raphf — Desun for Africa, Hirschfeld for Asia Minor, 
Habner for Spain. Halien for Italy, Ihm for Ganl, etc. — locate one hnndred 
places and towns of the Roman Empire that owed their fint celebrity to their 
mineral springs. Under artlienUi all the Athenian magistrates of that office 
whose dates are known are tabulated according to the latest evidence, by ron 

Althongh the circumstance that the letter A has already demanded two 
volnmcE occasions some qoalms as to the ability of pabtisheis and editor to 
compress the ontstanding letters within the compass of eight without reckless 
skimping in the latter part of the alphabet, the whole work is definitively 
offered at 300 marks, 10 be delivered to snbscribers in ten complete volumes 
of about 1440 p^es each, in twenty semi-volumes, or in one hundred and fifty 
nnmbers at two marks each. 

Ai.ntZD Emirson. 

Historische Grammatik der latelnischen Sprache. Bearbeitet von H. Blase, 
G. Landgnf, J. H. Schmali, Fr. Stolz, Jos. TbQssing. C. Wageoer nnd A. 
Weinhotd. Ersten Bandes erste HAIfte : Eioleilung und Lantlehre. Von 
Fr. Stolz. iii-|-364pp. Leipsig (Tesbner), 1S94. 

This is the first instalment of the Historical Grammar of the Latin Language 
planned by Wftlfflin, Landgraf, Schmali and Wagener at the meeting of 
philologists held in Munich. In order to expedite the publication of the 
work the subject-matter was divided among more than half a dozen scholars, 
and, according to the original plan, Stoli was lo tceal of stem-formation only; 
it was not until later that the phonolf^ical part also was assigned to him. 
And in this fact possibly may be fonnd a reason for some of the shortcomings 
of the volume under consideration : a certain evidence of haste and want of 
polish characterise it and manifest themselves both in the arrangement of the 
material offered and in occasional omissions and little inaccuracies. These, 
together with the tmevenness of treatment and lack of proportion which are 
here and (here apparent, give to the whole the appearance of lecture-notes 
somewhat hurriedly whipped into shape and, under pressure of time, prepared 
for publication. 

The difficulty of writing, at the present moment, a satisfactory treatise on 
Latin phonology will be conceded on all sides. An etymological dictionary is 
■till wanting, and a large number of controverted and obscure points await 
final treaimenl in mon<^raphs. But even under these conditions a compen- 
dium may he of great value as a sort of clearing-house for balancing opposing 
theories ; valuable also not only by the positive infonnation it gives, but at 

, Google 


leut eqnslly >a bjr iu pointing out and calling altention to ttill aaezplared 
pioblemi. ir. at the aame [imc, my* and meant for (heir tolalion can b« 
luggeited, (o much the bellei. But, in general, a compendiuin will be rarel; 
the place for the detailed preacDlation of new result* won by independent 
in*eitigalion, and tbey. in faimeii. should not be expected. A fair degree of 
completeneu, on the other hand, is indiipeniable to make the compeDdinra a 
trnilworlhy and impartial guide. This and clcameii of presentation are the 
two leiti of excellence to which ■ book of this character ought to be lubjected. 
An examination of Stoli'i book will show that neither in point of complete- 
neu nor in point of arrangement can it be coniidered latiifaclorj, and the 
number o( paragiaphi which invite criticism on acconnt of incomplete neci or 
lack of proper arrangement is quite Urge. 

The introduction covers 1 13 pages (about one-third of the volume) and deals 
in a veiT cunorjr way with the position of Latin within the circle of the Indo- 
European languages, especially its relation to the other Italic dialects and to 
the Romance langu^ei ; the periods of the historical development of Latiit ; 
the sources of our knowledge ol Latin ; a tarvey of the Latin grammarians ; 
the value of intcHption* and of manuscripts ; the more important works on 
Latin grammar of the poat-Roman period; the alphabet; accent; and pro- 
nunciation. All these subjects are treated with the utmost brevity, which 
frequently becomes eiceuive, when a mere reference takes the place of b 
direct statement. The dialectic variations which have received of late con- 
siderable attention have been, it seems to me, quite unduly slighted. Even 
the bibliographical references are here altogether too scanty for a subject of 
such importance. Following Kobler. by the way (Arch. f. lai. Lex. VIII i6t), 
the statement Matinilas el regionibus mutaiur et tempore' is attributed to 
Cyprian, Epist. 15. I have not been able to find it there. A similar sentence 
('cam . . . et ipsa latinitas et regionibus qnotidie mutetur et tempore') occura 
in St. Jerome's commentary on the second epistle to the Galatians, Migne, P. 
L.. vol. XXVI, 3S7. 

In the chapter on accentuation a few remnants of the old recessive accent 
in proper names (Seelroann, p. 31, note i) should have been added to the other 
facts from which the rccessiveness of the old Latin accent may be inferred. 

To the subject of pronunciation not more than three pages are devoted, and 
these deal only with the sources of our knowledge, and give a few references. 
Thereafter the subject is nowhere taken up, and under the head of the indi- 
vidual letters not a word it said regarding their prononciation. This is cer- 
tainty a most reprehensible omission ; for even from a purely linguistic stand- 
point the phonetic side it of great importance, if we are to deal, as we ought, 
with sounds instead of letters, and how else are we to determine whether two 
diflerent spellings of a word are mete orlhi^rapbical variations representing 
the tame sound or whether the difference in spelling is ihe reSex of a phonetic 
change? To be sure, if we Knd in ^339 'turd' and 'fortis,' 'sonant' and 
'lenit' identified, and immediately after Ihe remarkable statement 'Von den 
diei Kategorien verichiedener Articulationsart, worunter man Jtn grotitrm 
*deT gtringtrtn GraJ tirr Sfanmng Jer MtutdtkeiU bei der Hervorbringung der 
einielnen Lante (fortes und lencs) . . . lU verstehen hat,' etc.. we may feel less 
regret at the absence of other phonetic remarks. 

In the second part of the volume the vowels and consonants are taken up 

.y Google 


iadiTidnally and their independent tknd coinbinaCory changei diicasied. Here 
^>in mnch could be done to make the aiticlei mote complete and impiove 
theii arrangement. A Tew eiamplei vt*,y illastrate (hi*. 

The occurrences of Latin i are given under five headings, viz. (l) corres- 
ponding to I.E. i, §98, (a) corresponding to I.E. >, §qq, (3) at reflex of I.E. r 
/f ?• §'(Ki> (4) forms in which sv- seems to go back to more original in^, §101, 
(S) obscure i's in ptmdc, icanda, pallia, §t03. In ggS the proofs of the origin- 
alit7 of the a might have been added in a note. Althongh in > number of 
words tbe ct^jnate* are apparent, in others the nalnre of the •> is less clear ; 
lattr, for instance, in view of the Hesjchian atrlhiiai (Bezzenberger's Beilrilge, 
V 314) with its ablani of /-.d. would rather belong to §99, because such rTs 
are regarded by Stoli at leBexes of I.E. ». — In ggg the dissenting view of 
Bechlel (Hauplprobteme, p. 138 ff.) concerning the vowel of the heavy ablaut 
teriei in the weak degree (generally assumed to have been I.E. 3) deserved 
careful mention. It i> also omitted in the parvgrupht on ablaut.— The bare 
assertion that ar in ariirr,ari, etc., reflects a long sonant f without the evidence 
of cognates and other proof is also very unsatisfactory. — famfw, viKiPui : 
vaetau (§101) has nothing to do with Thumeysen's supposed change of -ov. 10 
■av-i CoUiti, in Beiienbetger's BeitrSge, X 6a, has attempted to give an 
explanation, and cites some parallel cases. But a reference to this article is 
wanting— The examples in gioa are so few and the statement ("enlziehl sich 
biiber ooch sicherem Verttlndnisi") so vague thai no one will be able to form 
any conception regarding the appearance of in tbe ^-row. References to 
Johanason. BB. XV 307. note, and Bechtel, Hauptprobleme, 346, are wanting. 
— A crosS'Teference to p. 169 for the aAttfaiiar, nevarca would be desirable. 

To tbe parallel Greek -pi-: Latin -tr- in §114 should be added Meyer's 
equation. BB. V 340, Greek -oT- : Latin -«•■, e. %. eenms : iipl(f )iir.— Tbe dis- 
cnition of (be relaaon of Latin iv 10 iw, gglts and I33, is as unsatisfactory as 
was tli*( In Ivan v. Muller's Handbuch. BB. XIX 30S, emended in some 
particslars after Havel, M. de la S. de L. V 46. note I ; Osthoff. Trans. Am. 
Phil. Ass. XXIV JO C and Solmsen, Studien z. lat. Lantgeschichte, p. i tf., 
disposet. I think, satisfactorily of the cases of this supposed change. — gttsg 
should be emended by inserting after "vor r" the words "provided the r 
stands for original r.'— The a in lelva is stiU attributed to the following I 
(p. lag), but teterdia sebriui show (bat this sporadic change of < before /need 
not be assumed ; Stoli himself gives the two collateral forms « ; « on p. 194. 
—The peculiar vocoliialion of forms \'i)i.t/ulgtir,/ulgiaii, augur, auguris. etc.. 
against ibur, t6eru, ftmur, ftmarit seems to have passed unnoticed.— On the 
change of w to iw (§183) the very satisfactory treatment by Froehde, BB. XIV 
So, shoold have been consulted. 

This list might easily be enlaiged bye careful examination of paragraph 
after paragraph, and additions may be found in the reviews by Preltwitz in 
Bcnenberger's Beilrige and Schulie in the GOttingiscfae Gelehrte Anzeigen. 
Yet, In spite of all these shortcomings, I do not wish to intimate that tbe book 
is unworthy of careful perusal. With all its incompleteness and lack of proper 
anangemcDI. it presents a collection of facts and references among which 
almost any one will be sure to find enough that is new to repay him for his 

You UnvmuiTT. HaNH3 Outbl. 

.y Google 

Ntui JahkbOchbr rOt. Fhilolocie und Pabdagogik, iSgi. 
F>icic1e> 4-S- 

36. Pp. 3a5-3J. Thukydides und die religiose AafkUning. The religious 
viewi of Thncrdides are again bioughl under caniidention by H. Mcum, who 
ia, howevet, unable to arrive at any bul negative result). Tbucydides does 
not exhibit in his liiiiory > belief in ripara or in oracles, and the expression of 
religiout belief or non-belief in the speeches of his characters cannot be taken 
as indicative of the historian's own views. But even in the speeches the 
spanenesE of references to the religious ideas of the day ii noliceable (13 
instances in about 200 chapters). In (he exprewed views of the writer there 
is liitle 10 indicate his own position. While the passages in which he make* 
reference to the religious sentiment of the time do not reveal the author's 
positive belief, the failure to mention in hit eiplanalion of phenomena the 
power of the gods as a ruling factor marks the historian as not in sjnlpathy 
with the religions sentiments prevalent in his time. On the other hand, be 
never expressly denies the existence and power of (he deities, but holda a 
middle course, like [>Toti^ra*, who fel{ unable to affirm either that the gods 
existed or that they did not exist, 

S7. Pp. a34-8- Zn Sophocles. Emendations by N. Wecklein of four 
passages in the plays, one in the fragments, and one in (he scholia of Sophocles. 

)t. P, tjS. Zur Construction von "p'v, A. Weiske criticises the common 
grammatical rule for npiv wi(h (he infinitive and with the indicative. He 
|n\>)»>ies the following substitute: TpiV is followed by the indicative when (he 
two actions joined by it have tome connection in time, by the infinitive when 
ihi'v have no temporal connection. From this rule it is apparent that in (he 
fii>i case reality, in the second inference it expressed. 

III). Pp. tJ4-~40, Nenanfgefnndene Handachriften der Homerischen Hym- 
nrn. A description by A. Ludwich of codex Ambrosiaans. codex Parisinns 
nt\:\ rt^Arx Yaticanns (gr. iSSo. discovered by H. Rab« and designated by the 
1. 11*1 IM <<f the Homeric Hymns, Rabe's collation <^ the reading* «f U for 
>i \ri>rt iti>iinKiii>'hes (his manu^icript from those of the most badly inter- 
yiMi .1 iln-H, -v, and shows ihni ii hns variants not to be fmnd in any other 
. 1 Li, y I ,i,in „y x'^y.-f*. furthermore, thm codex Ettenui (J), ftom iu agree. 
•\.. <Ti u iih \m1'..<>i^ni<> (O), nne of ih< best MSS of the Hymns, ia not to be 
|li<' M II n.i.l, na vii'11'1 (<•«». ii« Hrpllnnf>i ha* done. 

)>> l|> a)! >A I'l'.'Vl.n iin.t A|-nl1rtdorm, A refutation by R. Wagner of 
,< ■ I ■■.,1... iu,.i, l.\ t'tih- (in H.-<m*>, XWI S93 ff.) in regard to (be 

iK. <iii...i<iMiiiH ii'iMriniii|( ili< ffW c^-cle contained in Prodosuid 

.y Google 

SEPOftTS. 107 

ApollodoToi, Tiz. that the Ptoclm excerpti are not, u generally beli«Ted, 
eitnctt fron the poeras theniKlTes, bat rather that Froclai look them ftom • 
general mj^thological huidbook, which wai liltewiae uied bj Apollodomi. 
Althongh affirming that la^c parts of Diodomi, Apollodonia and Hyginut 
were taken from a mjtholDeica] handbook of the Hist century B, C. neverthe- 
let* Bethe wai forced to ackoowUdge that there ii a great deal in ApoUodotns 
that cannot be thown Co have been in the trealiie assumed. The stories (hat 
existed in no other fonn than that found in the tragedies may bare been drawn 
from sach a source ; bat others are used by the tragedians which have either 
no eqaiTalent in Diodorna and H<^innt or appear in different form. Bethe 
was therefore compelled to assume that the various forms of the legend vere 
given side bj side in the supposed handbook, and that UtCT mjilhographers 
selected each the form that pleased him. It is more probable that ApoUo- 
doms. Hyginns and Proclns used a book containing the ailments of the 
tn^ediei. collected and written down independently. That Apollodoius used 
such a collection of a^^ments is demonstrated by the fact that the legends 
treated in less known tragedies are given by him in a form different from 
cDTiEnt tradition. If such a collection of argument* was used by Apollodonu 
for the nibjects of the tragedies, it is quite likely that for the legends of the 
Trojan War he used a collection of hypotheses to the epics. 

41. Pp. 357-64. Zu Xenophons Hellenika. Conjectures to six passages of 
Xenophon's Hellenics suggested by J. A. Simon. 

41. Pp. 365-7. Batrachos — Battaros. O. Hense su^esti the possibility of 
identifying the Birpajfof 4 invw/J"'**! of Plutarch's nuf it' rbv rtoii aoaiiiiriM 
axDiEiv (I S C) with Bdrropot ffopiwjJooiiic of the second mimiamb of Herondas, 
in opposition to the generally accepted theory that Balrachns was the name of 
a character in some comedy of Menander. 

43. Pp. 36S-73. Ueber das Wort MOTZEION und das Alexandrinische 
Haseion. A discussion by W. Weinberger of the meaning of fiovariov, with a 
view of showing when and how it came to be applied to such an institution of 
savants as the Alexandrian Museum. 

44. Pp. 373-308. Zn den Psendoslbyllinlschen Orakeln. Exegesis and 
emendation of a lai^ number of paisages in the fifth and seventh books of 
the Pseudo-sibylline oracles by K. Buresch. 

45. Pp. 309-13. Zu Aischinei Reden. G. M. Sakorraphos suggests emen- 
dations to several passage* in the orations of Aeschlnes. consisting mainly in 
the bndceting of snperfluoui words and phrases. 

46. P. 313. Zu Platon* Alkibiades II. Conjecture to PI. Alcib. II 141 D 
by Fr. Polle. 

47. Pp. 313-30. Zur Topograph ie Koikyra*. Further confirmation brought 
forward by B. Schmidt of his assertion (Korkyrlische Studien, Leipsig, 1890) 
that the irpA tdif 'Hpaiav v^aoi of Thucydides (III 7S, S) was the island upon 
which stands the present citadel, and that the Heraion was within the old city 
and at its northern extremity. He identifies the mountain 'luring (Thuc. Ill 
tj, 4; IV 46, i) with the present town of Bioruvof on the northern part of the 

.y Google 


4B. P. 330. Zu Tacitni AnD&l«n. P. R. Maeller conjcctaret m^tu foi 
intut in Tac. Ann. I 30. 

49. Pp. 331-3J. Der Tig d«[ Scblmcfat roa Hntiiu. O. E. Schmidt lejecti 
the dmte given hf Dramuin for the btltle at Molina, April 37. and approrei 
that snooted hj Lange. April 11. attempting to reconcile the Mmewfait 
conflicting accaanti found in Appian and in Cicero's letter* to Bniln«- If 
thii date be accepted, the two lettert, vhich Schmidt has elMwherc thown are 
united lo make I 3, bear the datei April 30 or 3i and April 37 mpectiTelr (in 
the Utter X Kalendas Mai. mnii be emended to V Kal. M.>. The date of 
Cicero'i letter to Flancui, X 14, ai given, needs no change. 

5^ P' 335- Zu Horatins. P. Banh snggests iittdut tot aemstt Hor. Cann. 

51- P. 336. Zq Tadtos Agricola. O. Kellet wonld read t um m at ityiitimmm 
in Tac. Agric. S- 

53. Pp. 337-56. Lucanuf nnd Seneca. The dependence of Lncan opon 
bis npcle Seneca is demonstrated by the citation of nnuerons parallel pasiagea 
and lentimenu bj C. Hoiius. 

53. P. 3S6. Zn Cicetoi PompeJaoa. Jolins Lange proposes the emenda- 
tion nami ammiim for tium manum in Cic. Pomp. 34. 

54. Pp. 3J7-6B. Miscellanea, Emendation and exegesis of mitcellaneon* 
patsages by W. Dreilet. I. Anson, Epiti. 33, 45 ff, II. Paulinas, poema ulc 
133 fT. III. Athen. Ill 149 C, nse of attoitafiaM. IV. Hymn, ad Art. 13. 
V. fpmv^ u epithet of Hecate in Paris papyni*. VI, Use of in^vwc ai epithet 
of (he gods. VII. Imprecatory inscription published by Delattre in Bull, de 
corr. hell. XII 394-303. VIII. Inscription on gem in Biehler's collection. 
IX. Inscription from Silivri, first described by J. H. Mordtmann in 1SB4. 

Fascicle 6. 

55. Pp. 369-S5. Vorhomerische Abbildungen Homerischer Kampfsceneo. 
H. Klnge identities the scenes depicted on several of the articles found at 
Mycenae with passages in the Iliad. That engraved upon the seal ring taken 
from the fourth grave corresponds in detail with A 517-38; that on the 
sardonyx from the third grave agrees nilh IT 330-4. The scene represented 
on one of the three plates of a gold ornament found in the third grave ii the 
same, even to the minnlest detail, as that in A lt&-47, white the lion scene* 
on the remaining two parts of the ornament may well be connected with the 
history of the Atreidai. A tltXi found at Mycenae presents two scenes, the 
upper of which Kluge ideniilie*. though not so conclusively, with Iliad, A 
113-31. And finally the repreientilioni on a dagger-blade bear great resem- 
blance to E 161, P 61 and A 173. The connection of these engraved scene* 
with the Iliad pa«»Hges is held by Kluge to be the following. Ti>e poet of the 
Iliad made use of older epics in which these situations were described, and 
had doubtless seen the representations upon the articles fonnd at Mycenae, 
which even for him belonged to a remote antiquity. Evidence for this con- 
clusion is to be found in the fact that the Homeric description* are not only 

.y Google 

Tcrjt true la the picturei, but often idd ■ detail which could not be inreired 
from them >nd which must have been due to the older deicription* after which 
the HoincTic pauage* were modeled. 

56. Pp. 3BS-6. Za Thukydides, For the iroubleMine rf d> MTtpot at 
Thnc. tl S9. 3 Liebhold luggests rvUh Sartpv. 

57' I*P' 387-95. Zv, Arittonikoi. Ditcastion of Ariitonicus'i *ien) of 
(i) ^uoT^, i;6fia, (a) yvaimi, and (3) naitfimai, with suQetled corrections of the 
leholia, by A. Ladwich. 

58. Pp. 39S-7. Re»iew by M. Bencker of Schumacher' 1 Eine Prineatin. 
iiche Ciste im Husenm lu Karlinihe (Heidelberg, 1B91). 

59. Pp. 397-9. Eine Aegyplitche Grabintchrift. Emendations to C. I. G. 
4708. by W, Schwan. 

60. Pp. 400-S. Neaes ans Syrakna. Criticism of Cavallari's interpretation 
of the recent archaeologicftl discoveries in Syracuse. Lapns urges that the 
stone constraction traced by C. throngh the Contrada del Fnsco and regarded 
by him as a holy street was ralbet ■ poTtion of the old cily wall. 

6r. Pp. 406-9. H BK M0T2EI0T. The fi « Mowrei™ copy of Homer E. 
Diitrich holds to hate been brought from Crete after the death of Aristarchus. 
At Aptera on Crete there waa a VLoveeUrv, and the copy i> mentioned in the 
note to the pass^e in which Odysseus represents himself as a Cretan. 

6a. P. 409. Zu Platons Politeia. Emendations by O. Apelt to PI. Pol. 
436 A and S4S C. 

63. Pp. 41 0-16. Nochmats der Archetypus der Bmtusbriefe. Discussion 
of (he archetype of the Brutus letters by L. Gnilitt. He agrees with O. E. 
Schmidt that I 311 was written on the 30th or 21st of April, I 3J on the 37th of 
the same month. I 4 is the answer to I 3a, su that the archetype does not 
lack a leaf at this point. I 16 and 17 ate interpolated, except §7 of 17, which, 
Gnrlitt holds, it the answer of Bratus to a letter of Cicero conveying news of 
Forcia's illness (written about June 33 ; to this I 14 is Cicero's answer, written 
Jaly If). This letter of Cicero has been loit, but was perhaps to have been 
fonnd on a lost leaf of the archetype containing, according to Schmidt, the 
canclmion of I 4^ and the beginning of I 4^, letters received by Cicero on 
May II and Jane 3 respectively. The chronological order would be thus 
preserved. I iS was misplaced by the insertion of the two spurious letters 
preceding, and belongs properly after I t;. 

64. Pp. 417-33. Die Hauptquelle der rSnischen KSniesgescbicbte bei 
Diodoroi. Bader first called attention to the fact that his history 
of the Roman kingdom, ased Polybius as authortty for certain passages. In 
this article R. von Scala adds to the passages cited by Bader several in which 
he thinks Diodonis shows undoubted traces of influence from Polybius. 

6$. Pp. 433-4. Zu Liviui. Exegesis of Liv. XXVII aS, 6 f., by A. Wodrig. 
The final clause ui—agettnt is to be referred to remUta retro nunlU preceding, 
not to the following words, as Weisienbom and Friedersdorif have done. 

, Google 


66. Pp. 435-33- I>i« Enitochiai-receMioD det Gelliiu. H. Hcni showi 
that Jordan'* MMtlion that there are two claaiei of Gellint USS, one showing 
marki of reviiion by Enttochins, a copy of which wa« 2'*'" ^ ''"" ^ Anrelioa, 
u the cpignm at the end of bk. IX indicate*. 11 not infficientty well stonnded. 
The arbitrary change* in the teat cited by Jordan are (bown to be mere chance 
enon of a copyiit. 

Fascicle 7. 

67. Pp. 433-64. Die Psendoiibyllini*chen Orakel nnd ihr« neueite Benr- 
teiluDg. A. Ruch defend* hi* edition of the pieado-Sibylline oracles againtt 
the polemical criticism of Buretcfa (in Jthrb. for iBqi). 

61. Pp. 465-77. Die Legende Tom Tode det groisen Pan. W. H.Roicher, 
rejecting the explanation* of thi* l^end propoanded by Welcker and Prelter 
and disproving the assumption of Mannhardt, that the story is Indo-Gerroanic, 
suggest* that (h« *aurce i* to be found in Egypt in the person of the god 
Mendei, whose mortality ii mentioned by Herodotns. a* well as the land 
lamentations at his death. 

64. Pp. 477-S. Bitte an MythoI<^en. A plea by Otto Gmppe for the 
correct interpretation of word* used by him in his Griecbi*che Culte and 
Mythen. which critics have distorted. 

70. Pp. 47Q-84. Beitrlge tnr Kenntnls griechischer Kalender. An 
attempt by E. Bischoff to determine the order of the The*salian month*, with 
restitution of the calendar of the Perrhaibi, of Halos and of the other 
Phthiotic states. 

^\. Pp. 485-93. Zu Caesar* Rheinbmcke. G. Hnbo show* that the phraae 
inttrvailt ptdtun juadmgamm of Caetar, B. G. IV 17, 5, most be the distance 
between the two rows «f piles at the water's surface. 

7a. P. 491. Zn Ovidin* FB*ti. itiit in Ov. Fa*ti, IV 6ia. ii emended to 
/HJf/byFr. Polle. 

73. Pp. 493-S04. Beitrtge lar rttmischen Taktik. Rang nnd Befflrdening 
der CeDturioDcn. F. Gieting combats FrOhlich's view in regard to the rank 
and poiition of the centurions, and offers the following scheme, based upon 
the old threefold age-classification : 

I cU*9 : 1. primus pilu* 1. primus princeps 3. primn* haslatns. 

II class: 4-ia (pilus prior 3-to) '\ 

13-31 (princeps prior 3-10) I Priore*. 
33-30 (hattatus prior 3-to) I 
in class: 31-40 (pilus posterior 11-30} •i 

41-So (princeps posterior ri-ao) I Posteriores. 
51-60 (hastatus posterior 11-30} J 

74- Pp. 505-'*- Zum neunien und elften Buche des Quinlilianns. Expla- 
nation and emendation of lia passages each in b. IX and b. XI of QuintUian's 
Inst, by M. Kiderlin. 

75- P- 513. Zn Plautus. J, Lange would read in PI. Tmc. 3B4 Htufuam 
tUla instead of muks nuiia. 

.y Google 

FudclM 8-9. 

76. Pp. 513-38. Venchiedenei zu den Trachinierinnen. Discuision, 
interprelmtioD and emendation of tweUe passages of Sopb. Tracb. by J. Oeri. 

77. Pp. S>9-40. Platont Sophistes and die Ideenlehie. O. Apelt defends 
hi* aiseniOD against Zetler, that the definition given in Soph. 147 E is not to 
be regarded as Plato's own Tiew. 

78. Pp. 540-3. Znr Syntax des Zahlworlet ATO. A tuiislical studr of 
tlie QIC of the inflected and uninflected fonns of Hio, with statement of the 
law that seemi to govern their use, by E. Hasse. 

79. P. 544. Ueber den Codex Ettensis der >Ionieriichen Hymnen. H. 
HolUnder defends his assertion that cod. Esten. it a direct copy of Autitpa't 
codex (A) of the Homeric Hymot. 

So. Pp. 545-7a Zu Xenophons Anabasis. F. Renss calls attention to 
taany interpolated passages in the Anabasit, disca»es the value of the 
Athenaens citations for the teal, and gives a list of passages in Dionysiut Hal. 
evidently taken from the Anabasis. 

81. Pp. 571-S0. Miiteilungen nm Papyrushandichriften. Blast famishes 
infonnalion with regard to the readings of the papyrus MS of Aristotle't 
PoHteia Aihenaion, of Hypeieides' Kara MjiririAov, Kara iiiiioa6tvov( and 
Tirip AvKA^povo;, of Euripides' Anliope. and of Tidiu/ia. 

83. Pp. sSl-93. Atisioteles Urteil Uber die Demokratie. P. Cauer con- 
cludes that the phrase used in the Ath. Pot., c. 41 implies approval of the 
democracy, in which case the author cannot be Aiisiolle. 

83- Pp- 593-4- Zu Herodotos. A. Weiske thinks that the delay of the 
Spartaiu to send aid to Marathon would be fully accounted for, if we had 
complete infonnalion about the Kameia, which wa« doubileit a nine-day 
festival and could not be interrupted without aSront to the gods. 

(S). Pp. S95-6. Zu Caesar de Bello Gallico. J. Lange suggests emenda- 
tions to four passages of Caesar's Gallic Wat. 

84. I^ 597-613. Des Horatiui Canidia-gedtchte. Interpretation of 
meaning and connection of Sat. I 8, Epod. 5 and 17, by H. DQnlzer. 

85. Pp. 614-30. Zu Tibullui. F. Wilbelm. Fart I deals with the situ- 
ation of the second poero, which, Wilhelm holds, is before Delia's door. Part 
II U a defence of the readingi of Ambros. and Vatic, in four passages. 

86. Pp. 631-33. Hoch einmal die Bncbfolgc in Senecas Nalurales Quae- 
ttiones. W. Alters ntes, in the main, as criCetium for the determination of 

the order of the books of Sen. Nat. Quaesl., the treatment of the subject 11 
ttoical works prior to that of Seneca. 

87. P. 633. Zu Ovidius Uetamorphosen. P. Loewe conjectures mimoti 
for rnihu rra in O*. Met. V 5S. 

(51). Pp. 633-4. Zu Tacilnt Agricola. P. R. Mueller emends levei 
» of Tac. Agric. 

.y Google 


SB. Pp.63S-53. Eioe Welthandelutnue. W. Schtran diicusci the rowl 
from JnliopolU, ■ (ubaTb of AlezaDdria, to Koploi, and from thence to 
Berenikc, the moit importaiit commercial road of aDtiquitr for trade witb India. 

S9. P. 653. Zar 6g:vra etjrmologica im Lateiniichen. J. H. Schroak cil«« 
example* lupplementary lo hit liil in Phitol. Rundtcban, II 47. 

90. Pp. 654-6. Zum Corpus Inicriptionum Latinanim. Exegetit and 
correction of foutteen inicTiptioni by C. F. W. Mneiler, 

(3j). Pp. 657-74. Zar Geschichte der Penerlcriege. V. Der Kampf bei 
Thermopylai. H. Welzhofer continue! his critical surrey of the Persian wan, 
Itcaling in V the battle at Thermopylae. He compares the accounts given by 
Herodotus and DIodoms, and holds that the former greatly exa^eiated the 
Persian host. 

91. Pp. 67S-S. ZuT Geschichte der Mediclnim Altertum. M. Wellnwnn 
collects the Infonnation available regarding Straton.AetiosSikamios, Hikesioa, 
Apollonio* and Antipatros. 

9a. Pp. 679-91. Die Plethora bei Erasistratos. Erasislratus' treatment 
of ]>lelhora as ■ disease ii discussed by R. Fuchi. 

93. Pp. 691-9. Ein epislolographisches Uebnngsstfick unter den Pariser 
Pa|iyt). The two leilen from the 6rsl papyrus published by Bmnet de Presic 
itr« shown by W. Schmid to be Khool rhetorical eierciiei of the second or 
hrsi century B, C.. demonstrating the existence of rhetorical studies in EcypI 
at that time. 

94- Pp. 699-700. Zu Pistons Protagoras. F. Polle emends 34a B, and B. 
CiossB 3J) C. 

9}. Pp. 701-9. Die Schatienloaigkeit des Zens-Abatons anf dcm Lykaion. 
W. H. Roacher explains the legend abont ihe absence of shadow in the Zens 
al<aton on Ml. Lycaeum (Paus. VIII 3S, 6) by the identiBcation of this place 
with Olympus, which is, according to Homer, free from wind, rain, snow and 

t)t. Pp.709-it. Zn Phaednis Fabeln. F. Polle sn^csts ^/w^ for fM- 
•iam in the first line of III 4 of Phaedras, and explains the siinatimi ax 
fullow»: an ape ii hangiDg in a market, and the head has been left on to show 
Ihe kind of meat. 

97. Pp. 713-aS. Ciceros Correspondenc ans den Jahren 59 nnd %%. W. 
Stciitku;>t lubjecti Ihe kICeis of Cicero written in the years 59 and 5S B. C. to 
a cjieful examinaliou. with a Ttew of determining their cbiOBological order. 

gS. P. 733. Zu Ovidiui Heroiden. Emendation by P. Loewc of S, 104. 

1J4). Pp. 7»9-5'- Zut Ge*chwhte der Perserkriege. VI. Die Se^impfe 
bci .XrlemiMun. VU. l>ie Einnahme .-^ihens. H. Welihofer continues hts 
criti^-al discussion of iha Tarious ictounts of ihe battle at Artemision in VI. 
and in VII of the capture of Athens by the Persians. 

.y Google 

JiEPORTS. 113 

09- P. 751- Zu PtnUTcho*. E. Goebel diicasiei Flut. de def. one. 17. 

100. Pp. 7S9-S. Zam Romao der AUxindrinerieil. F. Suseraibi hold« 
thtt in the descriplioii of narraHn giTen bf Cicero (de inv. I 19, 97) and b; 
the Ancloi >d Her. (I 8. 12 f.), the second main divliion is added in order to 
make place in the fcheme for this form of literatare, which wm iovenled 
about that lime and wai in popular favor. 

101. P. 7sS. QPA = Slnnde. M. C. P. Schmidt points onl that £1^ in the 
senie of -honr* first occurs in Ariilotle's Alh, Pol. 30. 

io». Pp. 7S9-te- Die Priesterschaflen in Karien tind Lj-dien. O. Hofer 
correcti and sapplements Heller's article 'de Cariae Lfdiaeqne sacerdotibus * 
in Jabrb. Spplbd. XVIH. 

103. Pp. 761-7. Einiges Dber TTXH. In I H. Lewy discusses rixn u 
name of the deity at Delphi prior to Apollo. II. rix^ as one of the Hoipcu. 
III. ri'jT? = 'good fortune' in Pind. fr. aaj (344), IV. Aeich. Pers, 59$ rixK 
to be changed to Tiix"^- V. Emendation of Xeoocles fr. i (Nancli). VI. rhxTl 
in Menander, fr. 3 a, j, IV 313 M, VII. Emendation of Epi corns (apnd Dio^. 
L^rt. X 133 {.). VIII. Josephni Arch. XVI 11, 8. rhxv = cipapfitvn, IX. 
The ladder depicted on Lucanian and Apulian vaies is a symbol of rbxv, the 
most prominent goddess of the time. 

(so). P. 768. Zq Horalins. P. Preibisch ofTers explanation of the mana- 
script reading in Carm. 1 1, at. 

t04- Pp. 76^^7. Das Druidentum. L. Paul sobjects oar information 
about the Druids 10 a carefnl eiamination. He outline* their social and 
religioni customs and beliefs, shorn wherein the latter differed from the 
Pytbagorean, describes the three claisei — bards, Tales and Dniidae — and their 
functions, and calls attention to the radical change in the character of the 
Dmids shown by the various accounts of Caeiar, Diodorus, Slrabo, Lncan and 
Hela, bronght about chiefly by the abolishment by the Romans of human 

105. Pp. 797-800. Zur Odyiiee. Verses 375-8 of Odyssey a are rejected 
by R. Gaede as interpolated from ft 195 B. 

Fascicle la. 

lOA. Pp. Sot->5. Das twaniigfte Buch der Odyssee. Alfred Scotland, by 
athetesis and emendation, reduces book XX of the Odyssey from 394 to So 
verses, which he regards as the original form. la ch, V the author endeavors 
to prove that the kingdom of Odysseus did not extend beyond the island of 

(105). P. 816. Znr Odyssee. The comlunation oXao /uUa in i 343, 358, 360 
and eUewhere is resolved by W. Pokel into a common liUd and a /id^ to be 
connected with a following adverb. 

107. Pp. 337-40. Die Bedeulung von APETH bei Thukydides. U. Lange 
attempts the refutation of Mnller-StrQbine's definition of aper^ in Thucy- 
diiles. vis. " rtlcksichtsloses Verfolgen eines bestimmlen Zweckes," and shows 

, Google 


bf iMiMBiriiiB «ttSL tke puMce* in which the ir«rd occnrt, that thit inter- 
pnlKtias is applicable in onl^ one inilance and Dot eren then ncccuary. 
Thit wocd alwajs iBpIie* an ethical element. 

154.) Pp. 841-7. Mbcellaoea by W. DtexleT. Contiouation of pp. 357 ff. 
X. Eapl«Mitoa of plaiaia found in Nijm^en. XI. TOPPH£0£. Xtt. Un- 
fcB oan fic«n oa diadem in Berlin (Jahrb. d. lul. d. arch. init. VII, arch. ant. 
•. Ill f.) 11 Men. XIII. Placidn* ad Sut. Theb. I 716 ff. XIV. Glou. 
Labb., p^ 40. Coiuo. XV. Slitjphone (Schneider't Calliniachea, II 693. fr. 
161) ikMld be Seti-Trphone or Set-TTphone. XVI. Refutation of Rlet*' 
coaiccon (NechepMnt* «t Fetoaitidi* fn-., Phil. Spplbd. VI 333, n. 6). XVII. 
Disnis>a«of the tradition that the earth emita iweet odon where the rainbow 


loS. ^ S4S-50. Zn Comelins Napoi. J. Lange emend* tix panoEc* of 

109. Pp. tsi-69. Za den lateiniichen FaDe£7rikem. Conjectaiet bv R. 
GAtac to aboat fort7-fi*e paiiafet in the Roman panegTriiti. 

(9J>. P. M3. SchaiteDloii£k«it Lewy add* to hii article on pp. 701 ff. > 
note ftDB Haiiben aiv 9. 

liCk P. S6). Za LactaDtins. wiolitliam, LacL IniL III 17, 3. is emended 
by T. Staagl to ■>* «( > ' *■. 

Frank Loms Vah Clekt. 

Rkwb rat-Miii^iMui. Vol. XVIII. 

I ffv I 4k P"«v on the lyntaz of the voice* in the Greek of the New 
li ,!.<»>. Hi, hv Ku*)ih Viieau. The niageof the N. T. 11 carcfally compared 
«iiit\ l^ll v<J i't« t \>t and clauic Greek. The three Toicei are treated in 
iiuvto'v'M, <!>.» wm atmliricd, and the individual verb* classified. The 
iv < <>u.* iii.tli « ■lii>'uu>lAn of the verbals in -r^ and -rvc- This elaborate 
«.,.. A^ K>il M Is* i%l great interest to students of Hellenistic Greek. 

*, tv I* A* **ii» nWe* (continaed). by Paul Lejay. V. On the Lat. 
^1 1 1<> -u i)>d tliMi.xli^ne nationale. By ■ comparison of a calendar 

, 1 lu All Uk yiuh lome other calendar!, the date and orijjin of the 

\ . , ... .. ..u.u.^t VI. 'Paullli ConilantiDopoliunus.' The existence 

I .11, .L h..i l^jM >le,tac«d by Usener from a note in Ibe above MS- 
I I 'i i\ ' .:> ii !ti> ^i.\v*>t involves several errors. 

1 \. s^ Is, t'Uui. .\in|ih. S49 Ch. Tailliart proposes m*(mm ab for a, iho* 

i l.^Hn■n«ntatione* Euripideae (*econd part), by H. tu 
hfM k<amments are of Ereat interest. 
.»k>»Uirr, after a brief account of the draitUEe of Lake 
«ukK«ai> that the sabterranean canal is referred to in 
Vusii VlX(i03). 

.y Google 


6. Pp. loi-ii. Jules Nicolei detcribct and pnblithei the text of six frag- 
DCDti of Homer oa ptpjnii rmm Egypt, now in the libraiy of Geneva. 
Thne fngmentt are more or lei* matilated 01 ill^ble, and compriie Od. Ill 
364-75. 384-4<», II- I 44-60, IV 8»-9S, VI say-ja, XI 788-XII 11 (without 
breili). They futnish KTeral new leadings. 

7- P- 113. Book Notices. B. H. givei a faTorable account of the poMhu- 
QiiMi work of Hippolyte Noiret, Document! in<!diit pour tenrir 1 1'bistoite de 
UdomioalioDvcDilienneenCiitede 1380 ft 148;, Parit, 1S93. 


I. Pp.ii3-iS. On the Carmen Saecnlare of Horace, by A. WalU. This 
uticU i* one of the various attempts that have been made to explain ttdemqttc 
Mti) in QtpiltUa, in the famoni imcription found in iSqo. The author believes 
that ilie first nine strophes were inng on the Palatine and contained a prayer 
(0 Apollo and Diana, with invocation of other divinities, and that the next 
niae. containing a prayer to Jupiter and Juno and an address to Ihe people, 
with the nineteenth as an mvn, were sang on the Capitol. According to the 
iaicription, cattle were sacrificed to these gods, and mil to Apollo and Diana, 
aad the One. Sibyl., w. ta and ij, show that the cattle were uMti. Of. 
strofAe 13. To secure lymmetiy he proposes to place the fourth strophe after 
the seventh, as indicated by Orac. Sibyl. 7-1 1 and by the order of sacrifices as 
stated in the inscription. /Jitfyu, mistaken for > name of Diana, has caused 
the displacement. The article contains some interesting details. (See No. 3 

3. Pp. 119-35. Maurice Hollean discusses Liv. XXXVII 3-5 in the light 
of in inscription found at Makri in iSSg. The Ptolemaeos Telmessius of 
Livy was probably the sod of Ilro^/utJoc 6 Avai/iix'"' of the inscription, who 
was governor of Telmeisos in 340-39 (the probable date of the inscription). 
The article containa some acute observations. 

% Pp. t36-}C. On the Carmen Saeculare of Horace, by Georges Lafaye. 
Another discussion of todemgtu made in Capitclia. The view of Mommsen, 
that the Carmen Saeculare was *.ptKedw», during the singing of which the 
choras marched from the Palatine to the Capitol and returned — a theory 
incidentally refuted in No. i above — is here met with five distinct objections. 
The author then maintains that the entire ode was sung, Htst on the Palatine, 
then on the Capitol. He also holds that, despite the silence of the inscription, 
the other bynna mentioned by Zosimns were sung during the festival. This 
article and that of A. Wal 11, reported above, are indispensable to those who 
shall hereafter study that remarkable hymn, and it would be useless to give a 
diy nmmary of details here. 

4- Pp. 139-44. Philippe Fabia finds in Provence and Languedoc, under 
the foma Kanm^o, Rammice, Rim/te (the name of a monster used in terrifying 
naughty children), the Latin Rtmtlige of Afranius (Rib., p. 199], a personified 
abstraction, appearing as /rmbjW. He discusses alio the use of the word in 
Plaai. Cas. (v. 804, Schoell). 

5- Pp. 145-53- On Theon of Smyrna, by PanI Tannery. An edition of 
Tbeoii*a Ti aard ri lutB^/urruaiir xp^f" 'V ti^ rob TUi&Tui/ot iviyvaaiv having 

, Google 


been tecanti; (Htchette. 1893) published bji J. Dupnii, Tanneiy invesligstei 
the origiD of the incoherence &nd incontitlencies of the woik. He finds them 
due pailtf to Ibe fact that the work iru originally a compilation, partly to a 
Byiantise redaction and aDKneotalioD. He warns againic emending «o as to 
brinif a)>out coherence and nnifotmity. and diicusses some special pointt. 

6. Pp. ijj r. Henri Weil give* a note on lti£t pratuxtam fomtrt (Cic. ad 
Fam. X 31). 

7- P. 154. £d. Tonmier propoMS. in Babrim, XXXIII (43) ^ {., Kptirru 
anij -ii-aivTia. 

3. Pp. IS5-8- B. Hanssoulier identiRei lopiipaa (a tovn of Acamania 
named in an inscription of Epidaurui) with tvpffaov (naDied in a Detphtc 
iniciiplion). The article contains some interesting remarks on coioi of 

9. P, IS9. Max Bonnet give* ■ critical note on Tranbe's editian of the 
Opu9 Prosodiacum of Micon. 

10. Pp. 160 f. L. Havet emends Cic. pro Caelio >j, de Oral. Ill 199. 

11. Pp. l6>-6. J. Delamarre defends the date asiigned to the sculptor 
SilaniOD by Pliny (XXXIV 51). He shows that the objectioot that hare been 
u^eil are not lonnd, and then brings positive evidence indirectly from two 
iostripiioni lately (ound at Otopus. 

la. P. 166. Van Herwerden emends Sappho, fr. 79 (Bgk.), Alcaens, fr. 40, 
41. 15+ 

i.t. Pp. 167-9. B- Haassoullier offers an interesting explanation of rdv 
li;;. ai ruv rika Mvotdvav and rav iyi^av Tot^ rim iyim/iivoof in two Cretan 
iiiiLnptions, Both expressions mean roi^ i^^mc roit det i^ipxofi'wf (i.e. 
Eiitciiikg upon manhood). Before a consonant (0- is for ina-, and before a 

14. Pp. l7of. R. Cagnat discusses tpitotmim and i/iitomiHm, and concludes 
(h.ii ihe laller should be removed from Latin dictionaries. A recently found 
iiiikiipliuD mentions t fiittii> pltimbea cum epitonio amo adtabrwK l^iJttim. 

15. Pp. i73->cx>. Book Notices. 1) An account of Catalogu* ditsertati- 
uiiuiu philologicarum classicarum, Gustav Fock, 1B94. is given by f. 3) Pierre 
tic Niilhitc. Petrarque et I'Humanisme, d'aprts nn essai de restitution de sa 
L.tiliuth^ue. Paris, t69>, is summaTiieti and highly praised by Jean Segrestaa. 
J) Nuliuui d« proiodie et metriqae latines, par G. Boiisiire avec la coUabo- 
i.i:i<.><) de E. Eiuault, Paris, 1893, is commended as a whole, but adversely 
■.I A .[-.c.! ill many particulars, by L. D. 4) H. d'Arbois de Jnbainville, Les 
i,'\ until lijtiitinttde I'Europe. Seconde ed. Tome II ; Lea Indo-Eurapeens. 
\\. \ .i.'ttL'd by L. D., who finds the work interesting and instructive, but not 
„. ,....! laulls. s) W. Windelband, Gcschichle der alten Philosophies Sieg- 
I li.iLiihei, Abtisi det Geschichte der Mathematik nod dei Naturvissen- 

. I II lut Alteilhum (MUUcr's Handbuch. vol. V, part 1). Favorable men- 

I ■ s\.^\ i, lew advcise comments, by G. Rodier. 6) Tabulae qnibus anti- 

, . I...U.AC «l Komanae iUusttantur, ed. Siephantis Cybulsky, described 

.y Google 


I>7 f- T) Wktther Prellvilt, Btymoloeisclies WSrterbuch der gricchischen 
Spracbe. Some faults painted ont hj L. D. S) Otto HofTmann, Die griecbi- 
schen Dinlekte. 2. Band: Der nord-achlische Dialekl. Gflttingen, 1S93. 
ChMles Lambert find* thii a valaable work, but makes objections to some 
details, especially the ovei-use of the influence of accenL 9) ' Ante Agamem- 
nona': a new depaitnie in philology (Nos. I-IV), by A. P. Skene. Oxford, 
1893. Baiely mentioned \>j ^, who hopes that the promise "to be continued" 
will not be fulfilled. 10) Enchiiidium dictionis epicae, sciipsit J. van 
Leeuweo. Pan prior. Lugd. Bat. 189a. Brief and, in general, favorable 
mention, by L. D. 11) De coninnctivi el optativi usq Enripideo in enuntiatis 
finalibus et condicionalibas, sciipsil F. Johnson, Berolini, 1893. Reviewed by 
J. Ke«IhofT, who is tnTprised to find recognition of American grammars In a 
Berlin dissertation ! He regrets that the work offers nothing new, but some 
things erroneous. He defends at some length c'l with the subjunctive in Attic. 
13) C. O. Zuretti. Scolii al Plato ed alle Rane d'Aristofane dal codice Veneto 
47a e dal codice Cremonese 13139, ^1 ^^ '8- Also, Analecta Arislopbanea. 
The reviewer, Albert Martin, considers the fonner work (iji pages) latter 
tbui is necessary. He gives an account of the latter, which describes the 
MSS of Aristophanes, discusses the scene of the two sfcophaots in the Plutu), 
gives an index of the play) o( Aristophanes after Vat. giS, and treats of the 
MSS containing the scholia of Tieties. The reviewer supplies some omissiona 
in the first part (on the MSS). 13) Oreste Nuari, Quo anno Aristophanea 
Dmias tit. Extract from the Rivista di Filologia, 1S93, p. 9. Reviewed by 
Albert Martin, who pronounces the arguments ingenious, though not thor- 
oaghly convincing. Nazari, hj a comparison of Nub. 538-33, Equit. 514-17 
and 541-4. places the birth of the poet in 446. 14) The Pbilocteles of Sopho- 
cles, edited by F. P.Graves, Boston, 1893. P. C. finds the literary introduction 
loo brief, the metrical introduction too elaborate and sometimes cnoneous, and 
nearly all the notes lacking in precision, and some of them wrong ; but hi* 
renkarka savor of hypercriticism, as when he pronounces the scansion of doch- 
miacs 'strange,' without inliroating that it is the scansion of ]. H. H. Schmidt, 
and when he demands Tipf in v. 33a, 15) Thncydides, erklirt van J, Classen, 
III. Bach. 3. Aufl. besorgt von J. Sleup. Berlin, 189I. P. C. makes favorable 
mention, but finds some fault with the grammatical and explanatory note*. 
t&) P. C. barely mentions the substance of Studia The<^ideB, scripsit G. 
Lucas, Berlin, 1S93 (71 pp,) — an attempt to prove that 53 of the verse* 
ascribed to Theognis are spurious, the reasons relating to correption. by hiatus, 
17) Platooi aasgewlhlle Schriflen. VII. Theil, Platons Staal. erstes Buch, 
eridirt von M. Wohirab, Leipsig, 1893. F. Couvrenr gives a brief account of 
this work, with high commendation, despite some minor errors which he 
cotrects. t8) Annuaire des traditions popuiaires, publi^ par Paul S^billot, 
secretaire general de la vxiiti. Z gives a short account of this publication, 
and briefly discusses the relations of folklore to classical studies. 19) Dionis 
Pmsaensis quem vocant Chrysostomnm quae extant omnia, edidil apparatu 
critico instruxit J. de Amim. Vol. I. Berlin, 1893. F. Cumont points ont 
the important impTOvement of thi* work over that of Enperius published 
fifty yean ago, and highly commends it. 30) Handbuch der klassischen 
Altenhnmiwisscnschaft, etc., berausgegeben von Iwan von MUlIer. Bd. IV. 

.y Google 


a. AbtheilDDg: Die rOmiichen Sta&ti-, Kricc*- and PriTaUllertbOmer von 
Herm. Schiller and Mot. Voigt. Second edition. FJlix Monriot ^iTei s fall 
deicriptioa of this complex work, with fall liit of contents. He cootiden (he 
work mo excellent one in eTcrjr respect. 3l) H. Manitios. Geschichte der 
chmtlieh-lUeinifclien Poeile bit iut Mitte dei 8. Jahrbunderti. Stnttgiit, 
1891. L. D. deicribes thii work and prononncei it very atefal. It i* not. 
indeed, 10 tboroogh ■ work u Otto Ribbeck'i Histor; of Roman Poetry, but 
the time hu not come for lo complete ■ hiitoiy of Chriitian poetiy. 13) Le 
T^litme dam Estrone, par P. Thomai. Gind, 1S9}. H. B. Eivei a brief 
snmmaTj, with favorable comment. 13) Lncrice, De la Nature. IIttc II 
(Monro, tranilated into French). Bare mention hj L. D. 34) DiMonn de 
CicerOD contre Vertit ; DiTinatio in Q. Caecilium (with commentary, etc.). by 
£mile Thoma*, briefly mentioned by L. D. >;) Hittoria Apollonii regis 
Tyri, iterum receninit A. Riele. Lipiiae, 1893. P. T. 6ndi this ed. a great 
improvenent on the 6rtt. 36) W. M. C. Collar's Seventh Book of Veisil's 
Aeneid briefly described by H. Roger. 37) Catulle et ses modules, par 
Georges Lafaye. Paris, 1893. Reviewed by H. Bomecqne. This work took 
the prise in the contest on the subject sabmitled by the Academic des lotcrip- 
tioos et Belles-Lettres: "Rechercherce que Catulle doit aux poites Aleaan- 
drins et ce qn'il doit anx vieui lyriquei greci." The reviewer commends the 
conclusion that Catullus was not merely an imitator of the Alexandrine poets, 
but thinks the author has not given Catullna sufficient credit for originality. 
38) CUssiquei latins, publics sons la direction de M. A. Cartault. School 
edition of the Adelphoe by Fabia, the Bucolics by Walti, and extract* from 
the Metamorphoses by L^jay, briefly mentioned by f. 39) Clandii Galeni 
Pergameni scripla minora, rec. J. Matqnardt, Iw. MQller, G. Helmreich. Vol. 
III. Lipsiae, 1893. Briefly commended by V. H. Friedel. 30) A. Dieterich. 
Nekyia. BeilrOge iut Erklliung del neuentdeckien Fetnisapokalypse. Leip- 
sig, 1S93. F. C. briefly discusses the posiible means of ascertaining the origin 
of the notions of heaven and hell contained in this Apocalypse, and adds : 
" Mr. Dieterich does not impose upon himself so painful a task. For him the 
question, as soon aa proposed, is solved : the author of the Apocalypse cannot 
have other than reproduced the dogmas of the Orphic mysteries." The 
reviewer combats this view, or rather the soundness of the method, but 
considers D.'s book learned and ingenious. 31) Livy. books XXI and XXII 
edited with introduction and notes by J. B. Greenongh and Tracy Peck. 
Boston. R. Pichon finds this an excellent work for the purpose intended by 
the authors. 

No. 3. 

I. Pp. 301-19. Henri Weil critically discusses and emends thirty-two 
passages of Euripides and live of Aeschylus. 

1. Pp. 330-3. Leopold Constant critically discusses and emends eighteen 
passages of Tacitus. 

3. F. 338. In Babrius, CVII (139), v. 14, £d. Tournjer proposes ivtia for 

4. Pp. 339-40. On negatives in the New Testament, by Paul Thouvenin, 
Starling ont from the premise "ou nie la reality d'un fait (c'est la nation 

^d by Google 

KEPO/trs. 1 19 

objecliTe) ; ^ ni« U T^li»lion d'uoe peiti^ {c'«tt U. nation •abjective)." 
the author i7stciiii.tioll]r ireiti the vartoni categOTiei. finding > reuon for «' 
or /i^. M the cue majr be, in almost ever; initance. Theie reasoni will not 
be accepted bj all grammariant. The following instance* out of man; may 
be cited ; After qaoliog lome other example! of ou and /u^ in the tame 
•entence, he addi : " l Cor., a, 13 : ovk laxw^ ivcatv x^ mtbitari fim (fail rrfel), 
T4 m 'Iv*'' I" '^i'""' ''^ ^^M^' P""- Sans doute rinqni^tude de Paul eat an 
fait r^el, mat* le motif de son inqai^lode est simplemeDI pens^. De mtme 
Meb. 4, IJ. 4, 3. I Jo. 5. to ; i 1^ trtordw rf fcV Vwi<rn7V Ttnoisintv mriv, art 
cii Ttiriirrciwfv nrX. Ici I'ecriTain passe bmiquement d'ane hypoth^e It an fait 
qa'il se repr^tente comme iM." He then remarks; "La pinpart de ce> 
caemplcs sont conformet k I'nMge clasiiqne. Cependant il faul leconnaltre 
que certains emplois n'7 tont pas d'nn nsage conrant. Ainsi ce bmsque 
pa»aG« do fait jM au -fait limplement pens^, ou du fait peo*^ aa fail can;a 
comme n^l, qae preienlent les dernien exemples, ne s'j rencontre qn'eicep- 
tionellement." Again, after citing some examples of negatived participles, he 
proceeds: "On pent rapprocher de cei passaeea let nii*antt,qni appartiennent 
an grcc clasiiqne ou posterieur; Xen., An., 4, 4. 15: ovtoq yap , , , diljMiotu 
roiairra, to Inrra Ti u[ bvra jmi ro /c^ ivta (lei choses, qui dans son opinion, ne 
aont pat) uc mm bvra (comme n'^tant pat en r^alit^)." Then follow examples 
from Jooephnt and Plutarch. 

5. Pp. 941 f. L. Havet emends Plant Atin. 7S5, Bacch. 14a, Capt. 597. 

6. Pp. 34a f. L. DuTan explains in noetm, Vtig. Aen. VII 10, b]i com- 
pariMin with Lucr. VI 7ta, B74- 

;. Pp. 944-SI. Critical notei, by P. Foncart, on Aristot. Rep. Ath. XLII, 
XLIII, XLVI. XLVII. Recently found inscriptions throw important light 
on some obtcore pointa, showing, for instance, that in XLII aniarriiv and not 
iiripi'fJiT^v is to be read. 

8. Pp. ISI-4. Geoi^e Doncienx reads, in Tibul. I j, f>fi,fatiftr tt oittritltt 
/urtim dtdiutt amUhu, and in IV 4, iB readi adata for trtdula. referring to I 

to. Pp. 159 f. F. Gastaftson emends Cic. Rose. Amer. as, 64 ; 39, Bo ; 37. 
106; 38, tto. 

II. Pp. a6of. R. Pichon gives critical nolei on Liv. XXII 60, 34; 34, j; 
XXIV 37, 8; 48.5. 

13. P. 361. P. Lejay points oat the use ot f/mint (which must not be 
replaced by irmim) in Ot. Met. XIII Q3B— a matter of interest for comparative 

■3- Pp. 363-4. Critical notes on Ov. Met VI aoi, by G. Lafaye, who 
piopotet and illustrates at length the reading 

" Infe<Hi freeui ilt i%cri%, laumraque capillii 
Poniie." Deponant et sacra infecta retlnquunt. 

.y Google 


i^ ?p. i6« t. CL T>illi>n Tddt. PUat Capt. 79 At ceo aio recte dictam. 
[J, P. 165. L. DelaitteDc reaiU. naiiL CapL 16$ Qaod iciam : quod n«s- 

in iDscription, 

17. IV XTT-fia Book Noticca. l) Curt. Th. Fiicher. De Hannonit Car- 
^a^iBwnui pcriplo. Leipi)£, 1893. B. Aoerbach givet a summary of tbis 
:haiuB|[ti in««s<it{atioa. ob)ectJi% only to the iDioleni and airoEant tone. 3) 
H. Snu, Lihccbiscbe KaMstceschicble. Entes Bnch : Di« AnHnge und die 
ilccMe ieconiiie Kanic Uanich, 1893. B. Haustoallier ei*ei brier snro- 
■•atr, wi^ the highest praite. 3) Etode critique lui 1e premier chaot 
£ki><i<4BC des Pheniciemnes d'Earipide, par Dr. B. Apoitalidis. Paris, iSqj. 
SbowB by P. C. ID be Btcerly wortbleis. 4) Lei mimei de Herodas tiaduits en 
ffanfi. aicc iniroductioa ct note*, par P. Riitelhaber. Paris. 1S93. Noticed, 
m :fac inain faninblT. b7CE.It,, who makei a few objections, among them 
'.hii. " 11 {ait "Kupiree poncdei raiioni qai noui ont pam faib)«s." j) Loci- 
ADui, ici.-<^Daiit J. liooaieibrodl. Berlin, 1893. Highly commended by P. C. 
0) Qiucuiones Terentianae, *crip*il Dr. Flaminini Nencioi. Flamini Nencini 
V>UACi:iuaesTeieDtianaealtetae,tS93 (reprinted from theRiriitadi Pilologia). 
Pb. t'dbia pruDUUDcec the aolhor't conjectuTei ingenioas and plausible, bot 
laivly, if e«ci. cenain. 7) Leopold Winkler. Die DiltogTaphien in den niko- 
uu>.iii.kiii<i:hcQ CoUice* de« Livins. Wien, 1690-93. J. Dianu snggesu a 
iiuiuiKi <j1 >iuiiu«>J eutinples, (hat the author may be able to "render hii 
lu.vioiiii^ wutk .IS complete ax pouible," S) £mile Tboolai, L'envers de la 
SiA.x-'i'. luiuatiii J'apies Petrooe. Parii. 1S93. Henri Bornecque finds thi* 
>h<jik. 'u;iEte>:iLi£ aiKt tuilrucliTe despite certain faulti which he points ouL 
j; ' .1 yro.v nttiii^jue de Symmaqae et les Originei dn Cnrsas, pal L. Havet. 
t'n. la, 1 >uj. Kek lEwcd and summarited by H. Bornecque. who highly praises 

111. H.'.^ -tiiJ ii;|i.ti>Js it as creating a new method of textual criticism for the 
.■.1. 1 >) >uiuvii^v>. The amu (i. e. rhythmical close of sentences) began at 
1.. .-,.;* ia. i-,« Rev, Je Phil. XVII, pp. 33 ff„ 141 ff.; Am. Joutn. Phil.. No. 

>.. ,', ;>4 1110 ijul, lud when the accent came to be lecognited as in modem 
• ^..,. I wi>>;^t'^>iiUiii^ inSucnce appears in the ctirsui; but Symmachus still 

^..t;.. .;ic -,^.'u.^i ^ (Haret and his reviewer, of course, call the 

„,,., 1..J. \iiHply -rhythmical.'] 10) Chronica Minora, coUegit et 

,,,> >, iw.u> KikI>. Vol. I. Leipzig, 1893. Georges Go^au gives a 

^ . .„,.., .!...> ttiJ hitibly commends the wotk, which arrives at many new 
1, .v'lu^ ^i ihoiu in conflict with Mommsen's views. 

..,s.i iti-; Roiue dei Revues, begun in a previous number, i 
Milton W. HmiFKEBYS. 

.y Google 


heTamgegeben iron Fkiedrich Urlitzsch und Paul Haupt. Urilter 
Band, Heft z (pp. 1S9-385). Leipiig, 1S96.' 

The lecond Heft ol tbe third volanie of tbe Beitrage U devoted exclu. 
miTcljr to two mrtides of contideiable length. 

The firat oE tbeie (pp. 189-361) is an ezhaastive treatise by Bruno 
Meisaner and Paul Kost on tbe building inscriptions of Esatbaddon, giving 
a tranilite ration, translation and commentary of tbe recoidt relating to 
EsarhaddoD's architectural operations both in Assyria and Babylonia. 
The article i* divided into two parts, the first of which i» devoted to the 
explanation of the inscriptions of Esarhaddon which relate to hit buildings 
at Nineveh (pp. iSg-its), while the second part [pp. 215-361) treat* of the 
more numerODS records concerning the construction of hi» Babylonian 
palaces and temples. The treatise is accompanied by thirty-five repro- 
doctions of the text of the inscriptions, and by a plan, following Layard, 
of the soDthwest ruins of Nimroud (JiTaliu). It is unfortunate that these 
plates giving the text of the inscriptions are not introduced in their proper 
place at the end of the article. The entire seventy pages of pistes are 
inserted bodily in the middle of the commentary on the inscriptions 
relating to tbe bnilding operations in Babylonia, breaking badly tbe 
connection between pp. 184-357. 

An Interesting and probably correct explanation of the doubtful word 
paritM \i given in the commentary to Col. IV 19 of the prism inscription of 
Nebi-Vunus(p. 110). The author translates the word as 'calcareous stone,' 
giving as his reason the fact that the words ///» fi^A 'white ptlu' and 
farHtn, which occur together so often in the inscriptions, indicate the two 
aorta o( atone which were used most commonly by tbe Assyrians as build- 
ing materials. Delitisch (AW., p. ji6) gives the probable meaning of 
ftlu as 'granite' or 'marble,' and that of farHtu as 'alabaster,* but the 
following reason brought forward by the authors here seem* to show that 
Ihia idea is incorrect. It is evident from the excavations that the chief 
■tone materials, used evpccially in the foundations of tbe temples and 
palaces, were alabaster and calcareous sione, and it is known that the 
moontains in the neighborhood of Nineveh arc eilrernely rich in alabaster, 
aod that calcareous stone still exists in great quantities in the Amftnus 
range (the so-called Ant i- Li ban us), Tbe question, therefore, as to which 
of the two words was used for alababtei is answered conclusively by the 
references in the Ssnnacherib inscriptions to the procuring of the rarer 
fariUti stone from these same Amftnus mountains. That Alsurbanipal also 
procured faHUu in the rocky highlands of Elam is seen from V K. 6. 49. 
The ftlu stone, on the other hand, was obtained from the royal quarries on 
the moantaiD now known as Jebel Maqlub, in the neighborhood of Nineveh. 
The author therefore rightly decides that pUv is alabaster and famm is 
limestone, without offering any suggestion as to the possible derivation of 
cither of the words. According to D. H. Muller (see KIscbr. v. Aschrnt 
Durga, Wien, 1886, p. iS) the word fUti, sometimes occurring in the form 

> For tb* report » Bd. III. H«(k i, ■« A. J. P. XVt, pp, ii7-*i. 

Digitized by Google 


f4lu (mc LoU, Tiglathpileur, p. 177, 84 ; Lyon, Sargonteite, p. So, $6), ii 
aloan-wotd frani the languge of the Vannie intcriptioni, iDd thii ii all the 
iBote pfobable becaote the diiltict in which thit idiom was kpoken aboand* 
in alabaster ((or fncther reference* in this connection, see ZA. II, pp. 107, 
MS; RP.M. p. 117. n. 4). 

In the commentary to the same inscription of Nebi-Yunos, on p. 313 o[ 
the Beiliigc, the meaning of the word xittu \t correctly given as 'Ein/ati- 
MMg,' L e. 'encloanre, setting,' and the dialinclion between it and xiltm 
'destmction,' which is not obieived by Uelilncb in his AW., is very 
properly made here, bat without any alteinpl at explanation. It is highly 
probaUe thai xiffv 'enclosure' i* a derivatiTe fiom a hollow stem litu, as 
it is freqaenlly found written zi-it-lum, and it is not impoiiible that this is 
the same steal seen in the Hebrew Omn 'seal,' from which we have DTin 
<l« seat' as a denouinative verb.' On the other hand, xittn 'destinction,' 
which is eiplained II K. 35, 35ab by namaium, is probably to be derived 
from xat4 Mo ovcrpowcc,' fcom which we have the well-known taxta 
'defeat, otter destroctioa' (cf. ajkuna laxtiiu, Senn. V 75 et passim). 

The insciiptions relating to Esarhaddun's buildings in Babylonia, althoagh 
more onmerona than the cecordB of his Assyrian operations, are much less 
intercsling reading, because they are written, unlike the fuller Assyrian 
inscriptions, in conManlly recurring, bald, stereotyped phrases and enter 
but little into the details of the work of building. The inscriptions trans- 
lated In thit second pari of the article refer chieljy to Esarhaddon's restor. 
ation of Babylon itself, which had been raxed to the ground through the 
fuiy of his lather Sennacherib. These records of Esarhsddon accordingly 
refer lo the rebuilding of the two city-walls Imgur-Btl and Nimitti-Bll and 
of the greet temple f^^ffiVa, which had not escaped the general destruc- 
tion under Esaibaddon'* cruel and vindictive predecessor. It is very 
unfoilunste that the inscription K. 1711 (pp. 164-g), which gives a list of 
all of Esathaddon's buildings, is much mutilated. With the exception of 
1 K. 48, No. 9, which was found at Tel Amran near Babylon, the inscrip- 
tlous translated here by Meissner-Rost come psrtly from Koyounjik and 
pailly fruiii the collection brought by Budge to the British Musenui in 18SS. 

The form iiHri^ 'anger' mentioned on p. 273 is, as the author states and 
as may leadily be seen from the context, undoubtedly a derivative of the 
wdl-kuown stem ii'ietf 'to be angry.' That this is the meaning of ii«rfi* 
ilcaily shown by Zimmern, Busspsalmen, p. 23. It is not improbable that 
lliia nHil is etymologically a cognate with the common Semitic n]T> (UT> 
A\ (l*> used in Hebrew, Syriac and Arabic with the sense 'to commit 
li'iii'iaiiun.' The original meaning of the stem, however, msy have beeti 
'<'. iiu hoiicd or excited,' which in the Assyro-Babylonian became applied 
u. 1.141 1, but In the other idiom* lo sexual excitement. A precisely parallel 

.. .;- Ii iU» aiijillcatlon of the stem DDR, _^ 'to be warm, to bam'(cf. 
1^ i, ,, I'm iy,[i)iu rage, but In Gn. 30, 3S to the sexual heat of animals. 

^d by Google 


III tbc intcriplioa Bd. S8-5-11, 103, Col. II, I. 7, tbe latbora in their 
I rami iteration, p. 114, read the woTd mu-di\ti-nu\ afler lai-rii-tin-nu, tiini- 
Uling it 'wine' (tee alio p. 374). The word, if it eii*ted, wu prol»bly 
rnntimmt = wiu'tititi with infixed / from y)", a item which appear* in 
Aaajr TO- Babylonian in the rare word fm (aee II R. 15, 38a and ZA. I, p. 
187 ; alto Jensen, ZDMG. 43, pp. 657 fi.). The Sumerian equivalent in It 
R. 15, 38 and eliewhere for Ihm and karSnu ia Ml) . TIN, which majr be a 
Semitic loan-form. 

With regard tamumntu in itl-mummu 'honae ol learning,' menlioned p. 
iSo. the form maj he a reduplication of mm 'water,' e. g. mu-f-iniii. The 
reaion for loppoiiog thii derivation ia that the same ideogram i* used to 
denote this word and also liqttum • irrigation ' from Jof^ (cf. ASKT., p. 15 ; 
5>'-Si3)- The word mnaiMti seems to denote the nnUlhomable depths 
which were the abode of Ea, the god of profound wisdom. The Kuu/iic of 
Damascius is undoubtedly Mummti. 

The form immaldu = iwvialdu, alluded to p. 181 as the first example yet 
found of the Nif'al of veibs 1"D, is a highly interesting contribution to the 
phonetics of the consonant ■■. It has long been linown that Assyrian «, 
especially in the Inlaul, was pronounced like v or 0, and indeed that 
sometimea in in the Iitlaut completely disappears, undoubtedly because of 
its pronunciation like v. For the interchange of ■■ and vi, compare arga- 
m»nnii,KiKta.\\T»; DariamHX^*T\, xnd see the numerous examples in 
Delitisch, Assyi. Gr., J44; for the disappearance of us entirely, compare 
tga for tmga, V R. 65, 3a ; uiat'ix for ulatmix, hir'tni for hirmfHi, etc' 

In connection with litJir from the unasual iaMrti 'to uphold, care for,' 
tbe authors might have mentioned the formation kiiUru which occurs V K. 
Ill, apparently with the meaning 'proper ' or 'lucky,* e. g. tnilik la ktiHr 
>an improper (unlucky) plan.' This is probably from an adjectival form- 
ation Jhiitru = MuMru {so Jensen, KB. II, p. 165, note), with the original 
a assimilated to / by the influence of a soft pronunciation of the h, e. g. 0. 


The stem may be identical with the Heb. tOM, Arabic JD . A parallel 
6'M/aii/-usage is the t in tbe word jfam/nx = IvrmdmH (cf. Haupl, Assyrian 
£-Vowel, p. il.n. l). 

Tbe second and last article in the Beitrige ia a transliteration and 
iianslatioo, with commentary, by Horris Jasirow, Jr., of a new fragment 
of tbe Etana legend. 

Among the recent contributions in the fieid of the leaser Babylonian 
mythological productions, the work of E. T. Harper on the Eiana, Zu, 
Adipa and Uibbara legends in the second volume of tbe Beitrlige (pp. 390- 
511, and for report see A. J. P. XIV, pp. 115 S.), has been by far the most 
important. The tbeme o( tbe Etana legend is one not uncommon in 
general folklore, e. g. 6rst, that of the hatred of the eagle against the 
serpent, in spite of the latter's being sided by the son-god, and the subse- 

iFar tb* ut of >■ Is Aur>i>B. nprcHBIlug ■ loralfii i Is lufb aamn ss Xalm^m^ 
11'^- 'Alippo' with nDDUtloB, cf. ZA. II, pp. stg (. 

, Google 


qoent alliance of the cigle with a migbt; beto (Etank). What seemi to 
be an importanl epiiode io the itotj it the flight of Etana to beaiea 
cliDging to the eagle't breut, daring which the biid gi*ea him a Tivid 
desctiptioa «f the tapldlr receding earth. Etana bccomei frigbtcned after 
a great height bat been reached, and oiden the eagle to retarn, bot Ibe 
great bird'* itrenglb being b; thii time exhaaited, he falli to earth with 
the beto, who thua reacbei hii heaTenl; goal thtongb the natural medium 
of deatli. Unfortanatelj, the inicrlption translated b; Harper ia mutilated 
at the critical point where the pair of bold adTcntarer* are jnst beginning 
to (ail in tbeir npward flight. 

Dr. Jaatrow't article on a new fragment of thla intereiting and valuable 
legend cannot fall to be a naefnl contribution to thia bighlf important 
department of Babylonian literature. The fragment i* one o( a leriea of 
tablet* from the library of AUurbanipal which came Into the poiaesiion of 
the late Rev. Dr. W. F. William* at the time of Layard'a excavations near 
Moioul. Thit particular tablet ia at present the property of the Rev. D. 
W. Marih, of Amber*!, Haw. It is ondoabtedly a duplicate of one of the 
teat* explained by Harper, referring to and concluding the epiiode of the 
eagle and the lerpenL According to this fragment, the eagle, in punish- 
ment for hi* contumacy against the serpent's powerful ally Sama^ is olti- 
raately destroyed. The tablet giving the accooat of Etana'a ride on the 
eagle, therefore, must precede tbi* 'Harsh' fragment In the Etana series 
(see pp. 3'59-7S> 

It ii very Inteteittng to notice that Jastrow connects Etana and the Heb. 
name {DV both ctymoloeically and hiitorically. His conclusion regarding 
this point is thai there ia only one biblical )nv, e. g. the sage alloded to 
I Kgs. 5, II, and that Ihii person is in no way connected with Ethan the 
Etrahite of the Pialma. Jaittow thinks that the tradition which gives this 
name to a poetical writer is doe to a confuiion between the names \Tmt and 
(ini^S which arose, partly from the rctenblince between the two names, 
partly because ^n^ltn, Ibe generic title of )ni<, was confused with mi, a 
clan-name of the tribe of Judah from which in i Chr. 6, 36 a certain '3n^ 
li derived (see p. 377), and, Snally, because in Ps. 88 we have the name 
>mtttn applied to (D'H Jsitiow assumes also that this biblical Ethan is 
historically identical wiib the mythical Babylonian Etana, especially aa the 
names al the persons associated with Ethan in i Kgs. 5, 11, vji. Hfmio, 
Khalkftl and Uarda', do not seem to be Hebrew. Tbc author incliDe* to 
the Iheitiy that w« shall evenlually discover further references In Baby- 
lonian literature to these three names, and he thinks that the Etana legend 
contains the Babyloaisn elaboration ol traditions associated with Ethan. 

The word intt in Hebrew ba* undoubtedly the force of 'atrong, firm,' as 
1b Job II, 19, a meaning which may possibly appear in the probable cognate 
iljHM >an enclusute. a luituunding,' used IV K. 16, 14/58 for a net spread 
over the sea, e. g. tma iti-thi mitmti ml iJ.,n >lram whose net no fish can 

Jaslrow's tiealiie is followed by four plates (ppL 379-85) giving tbc text 
o( the iD*cilptii.>iv* itanslated. the actna) sise of the new * Marsh' fragment 

.y Google 

The article by McGee, Untersachungen zur Topo|[r«pbie Babjrlons anf 
Grand der XciUchrittarkondcD Nibopolaasirs uod NebaludneMrt, which 
wat annouDced for thif Heft of v«l. Ill, has not yet appeared. 

Niw YoB« UmnutTT. J. UymeLBY Phnc«. 

.y Google 


A *ei7 difTerenl work from Mr. FOKBts's Thukydidii t. which wu briefl; 
noticed in Ihe lait number, it Mr. Macan'i edilion of Hetodoto) : Htr^dglut, 
£«t^/K~K/ (London and New York, Macmillan & Co.), in two volnmei, the 
6ril Tolume conUJning introduction, text sod commentary, the lecond a 
number of ipecial reiearchei and djtquiiitioni the mere titlei of which would 
tax the ipace o< Brit/ Mmtim. True, like Mr. Fomscs, Mr. MAt:AN is not « 
grammarian, and his occasional grammatical notes are out of keeping with 
the learning, the research and the insight which the editor shows in historical 
and anthropological matters. Of some thirty'live points of grammar recorded 
in Ihe index, nearly all are the merest trivialities, and nothing of moment la 
brought nearer to a solution ; nor hat any serious altempl been made to 
master the syntactical usage of Herodotos, which is a very potent element iit 
his style. Indeed, one might learo more from the contrasted handling of 
article, adjective and substantive in Herodotos and Thnkydides than from 
many pages of rhetoric about the chum that divides the two authors. He 
who should be at the painn to watch what Aristotle calls the tricot position 
and the awroiiia position, and the easy grace of the slipshod position — 
substantive, article and adjective — would have an insight that might save 
him from phrase-making. It is, therefore, rather droll, in this dearth of 
grammatical notes in Mr. Macah's commenlaiy, to find that he haa actually 
discovered and quoted one monograph, vii. Heiligenatldt, dt tnmmtiatt r mm 
JtiuiUtim wm HtrodfUf. Why this partiality? There arc a number of others 
h« might have found cited in accessible school editions such as STracHAN's, 
noticed in A, J. P. XII jBB. Irregularities of conatrnction Mr. Macah it 
(ond of attributing to the excitement of the author, just as one might attri> 
bute the peculiar twists and turns of the speech of the Mytileneans in Tbuk. 
in to the embamssment of Ihe traitorous allies of the Athenians. Now, 
snch explanations are, in my judgment, perfectly admisaible, if fortified by 
exhauttive observations, but they lose their value when they are thrown ont 
with that genial ease which is characteristic of Mr. Macan and which seems 
to be a reflex from Herodotos himself. To be sure, the jaunty comment 
strikes one at time* as somewhat affected, and sometimes the genial ease 
becomes unscholarljr slovenliness. It does not mend matter* l« add the h to 
lloeck that has been docked from Boeckh, and somehow Palmcrina ongkl not 
lo be Engliihcil by Palmer, The Dublin scholar hat earned a right to his 
own name •■ Le Paulmier bad to hi*. Of course, every one knows the diffi- 
culilea thai II* In the way. Dr. Holden has cited Leandaviu under several 
diffareni foims in one of his books, and young American student* fresh from 
lh« tterman vwi'iMr are apt to Latinise honest Richard Dawei after the conti* 
neittal Uihlon, But when it comet to secondhand eradition, there it noend 
of marvvla, and a diueriatlon written In English may cite SirmJkarJfi gntek- 

.y Google 

rf Lacm- Tlan 

tnccd,' lajt Hi. 1 
Heradotu loia a fuA avr a 
Bujr mh«t Am ibe fcv: he ^ ■ 
■ AsaxafMH far ks BiHi 
i* t Ulie antkhesn. Tk nfbo « 
tkii tribe laiud thni^ ai: :W ca 
tbe Platonic dialofmca^A^avac: : 
on «kid> Mr. Hacam lajs « 
ft dcToat mao, ia a if w ; b«t m a ■■li i ia r u j. j^ n^^jsM fce^:n ^ aazr 
attindet B>e piMublc Aai it a alwayi dufow m '——■"'-■- i= £a=ees^&. 
It ii perfect!]' poMtble to ~— '^■*— tkc fa hi c£ Hososcai as ■■ o&c^ ii-~^ 
a/onV /ri/ faith, ■■ ihe faee «l ike obcJef :1m yecnCti ■» a^r^ <* '-^ 
circle* in wbicb Heiodato ■n»t.J. b n ptafeaij pouiblc :o n; £h«: be «aa 
a good Chsich 9f Greece »■*. B« evcfrt^i^ Hcfodsceaa a t:^l Kb.'ect ;« 
rrriuoa, and bowercr oae b^ diCn bam Hi. Hacas ai laiioas po^ais. kc 
ha* nude a (Dbitantial coatribatioa to tW Bad; vd Hctoaiotat aad added acw 
tttt 10 the work of one of the bcm hici>uiBc liigi ■iiiiiixl «ni$iic aad 
lorablc natnici in the whole woild of flimnl litcratue. 

A eonple of yean ago Kaobl favored m* with a a* 
^rMr^^ftnu (Berlin, WeidBBannKhe Bnchhandlnng), and 
call attention to the attiactiTe original and the ii 

edition of Ailni'i 
wai my paqioie lo 
texi. Now it it 

.y Google 


rathei late in Ibe da;, bat in rcreadias it for a ipecial purpose I find occMioo 
to emphMite > letMO which the gramnurian, however be ma; decpUe the 
Craetuli, muit consent to learn. Among the better writen — najr, even amooc 
the worse— certain traditions ha*e established themselves that we cannot 
afford to neglect (corop. I, i. A. J. F. IV 416, note a), and I am sorry that 
when I was commenting in a recent number of the Jonmal (XVI 396) on the 
foolishneaa of tbe teaching in the grammanas to n/4^> the following passage 
of the PTotrtpHdu wm not present to my mind: rlf yap <S»> Jv Zrayipai' 
Wjvir, e't /li A' 'ApioroTfi^, rit f iv t^Xuv, ti p^ if 'kpariai n au ZpbatrKm 
(p. 8 K.). An example like this effectually disposes of the ellipsis of a verb of 
hinderin£ and sacb stuff. 

.y Google 



FlUgd-Sclimidt-Tatiger. A Dfclioniry a( the Engliih and Germao Lan- 
fDaf ea (or Home and School, t vols. New Yock, Ltmckt b" Bucchntr. 
Large 8*0, half-leather, $4.50. 

The German -English part separatelj. (2.60. 

Maaa-Arnolt (W.) A Coociae Dlctiooarj of the Aaiyrian Language 
(Auyrian-Engliih-GeTmaQ). Part* 3. 4. New Vork, Limtkt A* Battktttr. 


Aoecdota Oxonicntia : The Crawford Collection of Early Charter* and 
DocDmenta now to the Bodleian Libraij. Edited by A. S. Napier and W. 
H. Stevenaon. Oiford. 4to, 180 pp. tia. 

Godley (A. D.) Socrate* and Athenian Society in hia Day. London. 
Sfo, 140 pp. 4*. fid. 

Hnrrar (J. A. H.) Tbe Oxford English Dictionary. Vol. VII. Develop* 
meoi-Diffluency. Oxford. 4to, 64 pp. :s. 6d. 

Sayce (A, H.) The Egypt of the Hebrews and Herodotos. Loodoti. 
E«D, 3jg pp. 7*. 6d. 


Tootain (J.) Lei cii^ romaines de la Tnniiie. Esaai aur I'histoiie de 
la eoloniiation romaine dans I'Afriqne dn Nord. Paria. Svo. Avcc z 
earlei. 11 fr. joc- 


'Abdnlqtdiri Bagdldenia lexicon Sahnlmianum, Ad fidem codicnm 
nanaacriptornin recenialt, annotation! bus, indicibns inatinxit, edidit Carol. 
Salemaan. Tomi I, para I. Lexicon Sahnftmianum, co' nen*. 4to. \i, 
17 n. 1468. Peiropoll tn. 6. 

Arittoielit Metapbyaica, recognovit W, Christ. Nova impreaiio. 8vo. 
II, 330 S, L., B. C. Ttuiner. m. 2.40. 

Bcanan (G. S.) On the Sontcca of tbe Dharma-Sialras of Manu and 
Yiiliaialkya. gr. 8. i*, 47 S. I.., O. tfarratsawilt. m. 3. 

Beitrlge, Berliner, inr germaniichen n. romanischen Philologie, verOf- 
fenllicht *. Dr. Emil Ebering. Komanitche Abtlg. Nr. 6. gr. 8. B., 
C. Vft. — 6. Ein Koromeatar in Giacomo Leopardia ■ Peoaieri ' v. Dr. Emat 
Slebert. iia S. n. t.80. 

.y Google 


lur hisioriscben Sjtntax der griecbiscbcn Spraclie. Hraf. v. II. 

Scbanz. 13. Hft. (4. Bd. y [SchlaH-]HfU gr. 8. WQrzbiirg, A. SinitrU 
Vtrl, — 13. HUtorUcbe StdUx der griecbUcben Comparation in der UaH- 
iicben LllleratOT. Von Olto Schwab. in.(Scblnn-)Hft.: Dea beaondcrea 
Theilu III. a. IV. Abicbnitt. i, mj S. m. 6. 

zuT Volkf- u. VSIkerkande. 4. Bd. gr. S. Weimar, E. Filiir.— 

4. Gescbichten n. Lieder ana den neu-aramiischen Handachriften dei 
konigl. Bibliotbek in Berlin. Von Hark Lidibaraki. vlii, 311 S. m. & 

Catalogui codicon graecornm, qui in bibliotbecam D. Marci VenetianD 
inde ab a. HDCCXL ad bate Da<)nc lempora inlati sont Recensntt <t 
digeiail Bibliotb.-Praef. C. CaatelUni. Lcx.-S. vui, iM S. VeneiJii. 
Mailand, U. Hetfli. m. i>. 

Cicero'* Keden. Auswahl f. den Scbnlgebrancb, bearb. o. erllntert t. 
J. H. Schmali. 1-3. Hft. Texl u. Kommentar. gr. 8. Bielefeld, Vtlkagt* 
&• Klasing, Geb., m. 4.15. — l. Die Kede gegen Qnintna Cicilina. Die 
Rede flb. den Obeibefehl dea Gniua Pompejna. Text, xvi, 64 S. m, farb. 
Kane. m. — 80; Kommentar, 52 S., m. — 60. — a. Die 4 Reden gegen 
Lucius Seigins Katillna. Text. liv, 67 S. m. — So; Kommeotar, 63 S., 
m. —75.-3. Die Rede f. den Uichler Archiai. Die Rede L Quinlo* 
Ligariui. Text, xi*, 37 S. m. — 60 \ KotnmentaT, 36 S., m. — tio. 

Ciceronia (M. Talli) acripta quae manaerunt omnia. RecognoTit C. F. 
W. Mueller. Parti* III, vol. I. S. L., B. G, Tttiiiur.— Ill 1. Coatinent 
epistularam ad familiares, quae dlcuntur, libro* XVI, epiitulatam ad Q. 
fralTcm libro* III, Q. Ciceroni* de petitione ad M. fiatrem epiatulam, 
eiuidem verm* quoidam de *igni* XII. lixzvlii, 578 S. m, 3.6a 

Corpus papfioTum Raineri atcbiduci* AD*liiae. Vol. I et II. 4. rii, 
98 u. viii, i25 S. Wien, ffa/- u. Slaalidnuktrti. m. 7a. 

DJonit Cocceiani (C.) Hisloriarnm romanatum quae aDpertnnt, edidil 
UiB. Ph. Boi*(e«ain. Vol. 1. 8, cxx*i, 539 S. Berlin, WtUmrnHH. m. 14. 

Goiamo Buddbo'a Keden aua der mittleren Sammlg. Majihimanikiro dea 
Pili-Kanons. Zum eraten Hal Qber*. v. Karl Eng. Neumann. (In 5 Uga.) 
I. Lfg. Lea.-8. xxiv a. S. 1-96. L., W, Fritdriek. m. G. 

Grimm (J. und W.) Deutachea Worterbuch. IX. Bd., 5, Ug.-XII. Bd., 
6. Lfg. 8. Leipzig, S. HitttL @ m. i. 

Grundrias der iraniscben Philologie, unter Mltwirkg. t. F. K. Andrcai, 
Chr. Banholomae, C. H. Elh^, etc, brag. *. Wilh. Geiger n. Ernat Kubn. 
1. Ud. I. Lfg. gr. 8. S. 1-160. Sttasibnrg, X. J. Trsantr VtrL m. 8. 

Herodot. Auawahl f. den Schulgebranch, brsg. t. Herm. Kallenberg. 
TezL Mit I (farb.) Ueber*ichl*karte. gr. S. lix, 161 S. Bielefeld, Vil- 
hagen &• Klaiing. Geb., m. 1 ; Kommentar (119 S.), geb., m. 1.60. 

HiitCoIre de Mar Jab-Alaha, pattiarche, et de Raban Saoma, cditee par 
Paul Bedian, P. D. L. M. <In *rr. Sprache.) 1. <!d. 8. x>, 107 S. Pari*. 
L., O. Harraijawit*. m. S-JO. 

Homer's Odyaiee. Zum Schulgebrauch bearb, u. erliulert i. Emit 
Naumann. z. T1. Text u. Kommentar. gr. S. Bielefeld, Vilk^tH &• 
Kla*iHg. Geb., m. 1.50.— -1. Gesang XIII 185 bis Geiang XXIV. Text, 
viii, 170 S. m. i-So; Kommentar (in S.), m. i. 

.y Google 


Holtach (F.) Die Elem«Dle der IgyptiichcD Theilungatechnung. 1. 
Abluadlg. [Adi *Abband1angeD der kAnigl. sSchsischen GGiellicha.(t det 
WiHeii>cliafteD.'l S. 19a S. Leipzig, S. Hintl. m. 8. 

Uuermtardenkniler, lateinUcbe, dei XV. n. XVI. Jahrb. Htsg. v. Max 
Hemnann. Ii. Hft S. B., Wti4maHH.~-i\. Thomaa Motus, Utopia. 
Hrag. *. Vict Michel* u. Tbeob. Ziegler. Mit a phoioiyp. Nachbildgn. 
Ixi, 1158. n. 3.6CX 

Luck (Karl). Unienuchnogen iut engllacben Lautgeicblcble. gr. 8. 
zriii, 334 5, Slrasabarg, K.J. Tri^ner. m. 9. 

Papjmia, bleratiacbci aoi den kQnigL Moaeen lu Berlin, beranag. Ton der 
GeneralverwaltnDg. i. Heft. 1. F. 3055. Rilual for den Kollus des 
AnoB. FoL 16 Blatl. Leipzig, in. j. 

Porkka'a (V.) tacbcremiaalache Tezle mil Ueberselzong. Herauage- 
gebea von A. Genela. [Aoa 'Journal de la Socijl^ Unno-ougrjenne.'] 8. 
ill 140 5. Heliingfon. m. 4.80. 

Sammlnng von Elementarbocbern der allgermaoiacben Dialekte. Her- 
aaagegeben van W. Sireltberg. I. Urgermaniscbe Grammalik. 8. xx, 
371 S. Heidelberg, C. WtHttr. m. 8. 

kSTCer Grammatiken germaniacher Dialekte. Heiauagegeben tod 

W. Branne. VIL HiiielengliacbeGrammatikTonLr. Morabach. i. Hilfte- 
S. *iil, 191 S. Halle, M. Nimtyer. m. 4. 

Stbawaihi'a Boch Dber die Grammalik. Mach der Angabe Ton H.Deren- 
boarg and dew Commenlai dea Strlfl flberaclzt and erkllit nnd mit Ana* 
tBgen aos Strkfl und anderen Commentaren versehen Ton G. Jahn. 7.-10. 
Lfg. S. Berlin, Rtuthtr A* Riitkardt. @ m. 4. 

Sophoklea' Antigone. Znm Gcbraach f. Schfller hrag. v. Cbrn. MuR. 
Ten. gr. S. uiT, 81S. Bielefeld, KW<l>^n) &• ^/.i/mf. Geb., 01.-90; 
Xonmentar (64 S.), geb., m. —70. 

Oidipoa Tfranooa. Zam Gebraucb f. ScbQIer brag. v. Chm. Muff. 

Teit. gr. 8. zziii. So S. Ebd. Geb., m, —90; Kommcntar (51 S.), 

S^egelberg (Wtlh.) Recbnnngen aos der Zeit Setial(circa 1350 v. Chr.) 
B. anderen Recbnangen dea neoen Reichea, htag. a. erklirt t. S. Text a. 
Tafelbd. Fol. *1, 99 S. n. 43 Taf. o. 1 Bl. Text. Straaabutg, K. /. 
Trtinrr. Kart., Tafeln In Happe, n. 70. 

Sladlen, Prager, aaa d«m Gebiele der claaaiscben AttenbamswisBen- 
(cbafl, hrag. m. UaleritQtcg. dea k. k. Ml aiaterinraa f, Caltna o. Unterricht. 
J. Hft. gr. 8. Prag, ff. DtmMtut. — j. Unaignierte Vaaen dea Amaaia. 
Bin Bcltrag anr grlcch. Vaaenknnde t. Lndw. Adamek. 51 S. m. 16 Fig. u. 
t Taf. m. 3.60. 

aemlliatiiche, hrag. t. Carl Beiold. Ergiuongahefte aur Zeitachiifl 

t Aaajriologie. 8. n. 9. Hft. gr. 8. Weimar, E. Ftlitr.—S, 9. Die neu- 
aramilachen Handacbiiften der kOnlgl. Blbliotbek an Berlin, in Auawahl 
hrig., Dbera. n. erlintert t. Hark Udibarakl. 3. Tl. I. Bd., xia a. S. 109- 
Slo, n. 1. Bd., ili 5. m. 1 Scbrifttaf. m. 16. 

Tadtaa, det P. Comeliua, Germania a. Agrieola. Far den Schnlgebt. 
baaib. «. erllutert t. Dr. Frdt. Seller. Text. gr. S. xxt, 84 5. m. 2 farb. 

.y Google 


Kuten. BltAcMAiVilJkagm ^ XUting. Gcb^B.i; KomneMv(i(nS.), 
pb., B. —90. 

UikiiDdeii,ig7ptiiche,mas den keaigLUoMam la Berlin, heraufegebcB 
100 der GeaeralTerwillBDg. Koptiscbe Bnd anbUcbe Urkaadeii. II. Bd, 
4.-6. Heft. 4. BerliD, Wtidmmmt. @ m. mo- 

Walker (Rich.) Die Aithnnsge in der englJMhen litcnur. Profi. 
4. 39 & 1-.A. EJtlmamm. n. 1. 

.y Google 


Annual ot the Biiliah School at Atheoi. No. I. Scsiion 1894-95. 
Printed for the •ubacribera. 

AngOBtini (S. Auteli) ConfeMionam libri XIII ex rec Pii Kn«1l, Corpuf 
Scriptoiam Eccletiuticorum Latinoiom. Edit, consilio ot ioipenEis aca- 
dcmiae Ittteiarnm Caesareae Vindobonensis. Vol, XXXIII (Sectio I, 
Pmr»I). Vindoboatt, F.Timftky. Lip«iae, C./^rffrt^.MUCCCLXXXXVI. 

Do Bois Reymond (Emil). WUienicbaltliche Vurtrfige. Ed. with 
introd. and nolei bf Jamea Howard Gore. Boston, Giim 6* Ce., 1S9G, 

Edocational Keview. Vol. XI, Nos. 1 and 3. Febr., Mar. 1S96. New 
York, //enry Htlt A* Co. (3 per annum. 

Euripides. Ion. Ed. with introduction, notes and critical appendix by 
C. S. Jetram. Oxford, At thi Clartndtn Priis. New York, Macmitlan 
d* Co., 1S96L 

Kranklin (S. B.) Trace* of Epic Influence in the Tr^ediea of Aeschylua. 
(Biyn Hawr Diia.) Baltimore, TTu Friidiitwatd Ca., 1895. 

Hellenic Stndiea, The Journal of. No. XV, Part II. London and New 
York, Matmitlan &• C»., 1S95. 

Hogarth (D. E.) and Benaon (E. F.) Report of Proapecti of Research 
JD Alexandria. Reprinted for the Archaeological Report of the Egypt. 
Exploration Fund, by the Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies, 
London and New York, MtcmilUii A* Co., 1895. 

Kniper (K.) Studia Callimachea, L De hymnorom I-IV diclione epica. 
Logdani-Bat., afud A. IV. Sijtheff, HDCCCXCVI. 

Uasqueray (Panlus). De tragic* ambiguitate apud Eoripiden, Thesis. 
Paris, C, mincksieck, 1895. 

Th^rie des forme* lyrique* de la trag^die grecque. Thise pr^- 

■ent^ k la faculty des letttes de Pails. Paila, C. Klimkiitck, 1895. 

Heliser (Oito> Geschichte dei Karthager. Zweiter Band, Mil 3 Karten. 
Berlin, tViidmammtht BucikanJlunf, 1S96. 13 m. 

Uilioo's Paradise Lost. Books I and II. Ed. with introduction and 
■Otis by Albert S. Cook. (The Students' Series of English Classics.) 
Boston, New York, Chic, Ltath, Shtmll &• Santtrn, 1896. 

Hodem Language Association of America (Publications of the). Ed. by 
James W. BrighL Vol. XI, No. t. New leiies. *o1. IV, No. 1. Contents : 
F. H. P<ge : A Gancho Poem,— C. H. Grandgent : Warmplh,— Bliss Perry : 
Fiction as a College Study.— C. C. Harden : The Spanish Dialect of Mexico 
City. Baltimore, Tki Aiiniatieti, 1S95. (1. 

NctUcship (Henry), Second Series. Ed. by F. Haverfield. With 
poittait and memoir, Oxford, At tki ClartndtH Prat. New York, Mat- 
mUlM A* Cr„ 1895. (Through Cuahing ft Co., Baltimore.) 

.y Google 


Nene (Fiiedrlcb). Formenlebte der Uteioiichen Spnche. Drittcr 
Band: Das Verbumi. Drjtte sebr *enn. Aafl. vod C. Wagener. Siebente 
bii neanle Liefg. Berlin, 1896. % Liefg. i m, 50 pf. 

Panlf'i Realencjclopidie der daiaiscben Allen omtwiMcnKhaft. N«ae 
BearbeitBDg. Untet MilwirkDiig xahlreicher Facfagenossen berantg. toi 
Georg WiMowa. Enter Halbband : Aal-AleiaDdroa. Zweiter Halbband: 
Alexaodros-Apollokraiea. Statlgart,/. B. Mittltrtchtr Virlag, 1893, 1894. 
® iSni- 

Plutarcb. De capidilate diritiarum. Ed. by W. R. Palon. Loadon, 
David /futt, 1896. 

Friebich (Robert). Dealicbe Handschriflen in England b«scbrieben t. 
R. P. Eratet Band % Aahbumham- Place, Cambridge, Cheltenham, Oxford, 
Wigan. Mit einem Anhang ungedrnckter StBcke. Erlangen, Fr. Jtmgi. 

Scholia Ariitophanica : being anch comments adscript to the text of 
Aristophanes aa hare been preaerred in the Codex Rarenaa*. Arranged, 
emended and translated br William G, Rnlherfotd. In three toIs. Voli. 
I and II. London and New York, Matmillan Si" C*., 1&96. I16.50. 

Winterfeld (Panl too). BeltrAge nr Qaellen- u. Teslkritik. Berlin, 
WtidmaHntthc Buthhandlung, 1896. 1 m. 

.y Google 


Vol. XVII, 2. Whole No. 66. 


The followins: paper relates to the origin of what is called the 
Western text of the Acts. This, as is well known, is best given, 
though not in its entirety, in the Codex Bezae. But other 
codices, notably the Laudianus, exhibit the same modifications 
of the text ; and they are also found sporadically in the old Latin 
and in the mai^in of the Heraclean Syriac. 

Prof. Blass in his recent edition of the Ads, in which he 
separates the so-called Western text and prints it underneath the 
ordinary text, concludes that in it we have preserved to us a 
preliminary draft of the Acts, the work of Luke himself. Other 
critics, in particular Prof. W. M. Ramsay, argue that it is a much- 
glossed recension made about the middle of the second century. 
And the problem of its origin is in any case so intricate that any 
fresh light upon it must be welcome. Let me then state sum- 
marily the conclusion which I believe is warranted by the new 
lacts which in the following essay are brought to light. It is this. 
There once existed a Greek text of the type called Western 
which exhibited not only the glosses peculiar to the codices D 
(or Bezae) and E (or Laudianus), but various other glosses only 
now found sporadically in the Syriac or old Latin or in the Codex 
137 (of Acts). Being more comprehensive, this text must also 
have been older than the Bezan. This now lost text was the 
basis of an early commentary to which, in some form or other of 
it, both Chrysostom and Ephrem had access, so as to use it in 
their respeaive commentaries on the Acts- It results that as we 

.y Google 


go back in the history of the Bezan text the glosses do not 
diminish in number, but rather increase ; and that the Bezan text 
has not grown by accretion, as many eminent scholars have 
supposed. On the contrary, it is a text in which the glosses, so 
called, have been thinned out somewhat. For readings which all 
stood tc^ether in the text which underlies the Armenian com- 
mentary are now only found scattered wide apart in the Bezan 
Codex, in Gigas, in Codex 137, in the Syriac,and in S. Augustine. 

In the December of 1893 1 translated from Armenian for ProC 
Rendel Harris's use a number of fragments of the commentary 
on the Acts written by Ephrem Syrus. These are contained in 
an Armenian catena on the Acts printed at the Mechitarist press 
of Venice in the year 1839. They are important because they 
attest that the text of the Acts used by Ephrem contained many 
of the glosses peculiar to the Codex Bezae. In his appendix, 
however. Prof. Harris threw out a hint which I have taken up 
and worked out in the following pages. For he recognised that 
one or two passages in the Greek commentary ascribed to Cbry- 
sostom are identical with fragments of Ephrem's commentary as 
preserved in the Armenian. Chrysostom's Greek does not, 
indeed, present many such points of conuct; but I had already 
observed that the long and numerous extracts of Chrysostom 
preserved in the same Armenian Catena were different from the 
Greek text printed by Henry Savile ; and that these differences 
were not attributable to the Armenian translator, but must have 
characterised the Greek which lay behind the Armenian. It then 
occurred to me to examine the Armenian text of Chrysostom 
with a view to see whether there were not more traces in it, than 
in the existing Greek, not only of an admixture of Ephrem, but 
of Bezan or Western readings. 1 was rewarded by finding many 
traces of Ephrem other than the two or three which Prot Harris's 
keen eyes had already detected ; while of Bezan readings I found 
a copious harvest. These I now make public, along with some 
passages of the commentary which, though not reflecting a 
Western text, have an interest and are not found in the Greek 

But first I may say a few words about the Catena itselt^ It 
consists of 458 closely printed pages octavo ; and the matter is 
divided into 55 chapters, as is the existing Greek commentary of 
Chrysostom. A table of contents is prefixed also identical with 
the Tuv <ic rac n/xifciT r^\tm¥ triHif printed by Savile in volume IV, 

.y Google 


at the ead of the work on the Acts. The arrangement of the 
Armenian Catena is thus based on Chrysostom. It is, as a rule, 
with a bit of Cbrysostom that each chapter opens ; and hia 
excerpts occupy nine-tenths of the hook. The Catena is printed 
from two codices, of which one is dated 1049 of the Armenian 
era, = A. D. 1601, and it contains, beside excerpts of Chrysos- 
tom, Epbrem and Cyril of Jerusalem, a few passages from Dio- 
nysius, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory Nazianzen, Nerses Catholicos 
(Lambronatzi), Kiurakos and David the Philosopher. Nerses 
was bom 1 153, and his literary activity occupied the last 25 years 
of the century. Kiurakos belonged to the eleventh century. 
David the Philosopher was the translator of Aristotle and lived 
in the fifth century. The Catena therefore cannot have been 
compiled before the thirteenth century; nor is there good reason 
to suppose that all these writers had written commentaries on the 

The anonymous compiler, however, does seem to have used 
classical Armenian versions, long anterior to his own age, of the 
entire commentaries at least of Chrysostom and of Ephrem ; for 
in his dedicatory address to the Lord John, brother of the king 
and bishop of the province of the divinely preserved fortress of 
Maulevon and of some part of the lofty castles, and also overseer 
of the renowned and holy congregation of Goner, he writes thus 

(p. 9): 

"Thou badest roe set before myself the original, and from the 
broad and copious interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles with 
level judgement (or ? taking passages of equivalent meaning) 
contract and arrange in brief the longer treatises . . . However, 
though intricate, 'tis nevertheless a plain and trodden path and 
likewbe smooth and firm, which I was bidden by thee to pursue, 
more particularly because I have to guide me, as it were, bright 
torches and unapproachable suns — namely, the skilful Lord 
Ephrem, taught of God, and the &mous Chrysostom, fountain 
of Christian lore. Clasping whose heavenward feet in fear, I 
humbly pray that they first pardon my temerity and then assist 
my weak faculties, so that I may cope with their profound and 
briUiant interpretations of the Acts of the holy Apostles; that I 
may string together and interweave like precious pearls their 
interpretations in some places difTering and sometimes concor- 
dant . . . But they that have wider capacity and are strong in 
understanding will, in order to slake their thirst, have recourse to 

.y Google 


the fountains of the wise which stretch like a sea — I mean to the 
extensive original commentaries, from which the following expo- 
sition has been so much abridged and summarised." 

The above proves (i) that the Armenian compiler had the 
longer commentaries in his hands, and (a) found that they some- 
times dilTered from one another, but sometimes agreed. The 
former of these facts is more explicitly avowed in the title which, 
after the above preface, is prefixed to his work: "From the 
original and extended commentaries on the Acts of the Apostles 
of the Saints, the Lord Ephrem and the blessed John Chrysostom, 
the following abridgement has been compiled. As thou per- 
ceives!, in their several places are written in against their respec- 
tive comments the names of the Saints, by order of the Lord 
John," etc. 

It is therefore not vain to hope that the whole of Ephrem's 
commentary on the Acts may yet be recovered in Armenian. It 
must surely be lurking in the monastic library of Edscbmiadzin 
or of Jerusalem. The Mechitarists of Venice, however, declare 
that their library does not contain it, and it could hardly have 
escaped their eyes. This Catena is the only commentary on the 
Acts which I myself could discover there. In view of the peculiar 
differences which there are between the Armenian and the Greek 
forms of Chrysostom's commentary, it is not superfluous to add 
here the gist of the colophon appended to this Catena. It is 

"The prayer of the new possessor and labour-loving renewer 
of the original commentary [or interpretation) from which this 
(i. e. the Catena) was abridged." It runs thus: "In the year of 
the creation 6501, of the advent of the Saviour 1077, of the 
Chosrovian reckoning of the race of Hajk (i. e. of the Armenians) 
535, in the reign of Michael, son of Dukas (spelt Dukads), and 
in the patriarchate of Kosmas and Gregory, son of Gregory 
Palhavouni; I having been elevated to the throne of my fore- 
father, Saint Gregory, and according to the providence (or fore- 
sight) of Saint Isaac, being hard put to it by the persecution with 
the sword of the Scythians, came to the sumptuous resting-place 
(tfr abode = fiar^) of Saint Constantine. And after eager search 
I found the guerdon of many, the magnificent interpretation of 
the Acts of the Apostles of the great John Chrysostom, (full oQ 
brilliant and helpful teaching. And having met with a learned 
rhetor Kirakos advanced in Greek and Armenian studies, I 

.y Google 


caused hini in bis generous zeal to translate the desired prize of 
my spirit. And having received it with hearty joy, as if it were 
the tablets of the first prophet, I crossed with great toil the wide 
stretch of Libya and of the Asiatic gulf, and by the providence 
of the Spirit I came to the portion of Shem in the lower slopes 
of Taurus, to the abode of the saints wherein angels dwell. And 
there I found the learned and grace-endowed Kirakos, my son in 
spirit and pupil of the great scholar Geoi^e, my successor [or 
vicar). And be eagerly undertook, according to the gifts of the 
Spirit richly bestowed on him, to restore anew the adulterated 
(Md(uj|UFa) language of the rhetor, changing it into the fluent and 
harmonious idiom of our race . . ." 

From the above it is clear that the version of Chrysoslom from 
which this Catena was compiled was made in A. D. 1077 from a 
Greek copy found in a monastery of S. Constantine; and that 
this first version made by the rhetor Kirakos was remodelled and 
changed into pure Armenian by another Kirakos in the region of 
Taurus. Where the monastery of Constantine was, I know not ; 
but as the writer crossed Libya and the Asiatic gulf on his way to 
the Taurus therefrom, he probably started from Cyrene, went by 
land to Alexandria and thence by sea to Iskanderoun. If so, we 
have here a text of Chrysostom's commentary coming from 
Cyrene in the eleventh century. 

The version of Ephrem's commenUry used by the compiler of 
this Catena may have been made along with the rest of the 
versions of Ephrem in a still earlier epoch of Armenian literature, 
perhaps in the seventh or eighth century. It was made by some 
one who had the Armenian vulgate at his elbow, for the citations 
are always given according to the text of that vulgate. So also 
are the citations of Chrysostom. 

We very soon come on a passage which seems to bear out' 
Pro£ Harris's conjecture that Chrysostom used Ephrem's com- 
mentary in writing his own. I give in English the equivalent 
passages of Chrysostom and Ephrem. 

Chrysost., ed. Savile, vol. IV, Armen. Catena, p. 31. 

p. 6ti, 1. 19. Chrys. — So then Christ re- 
Wherefore also he remained TaaL\neAoacan\\ 40 days appear- 
40 days on the earth after his ing io them; that by seeing for 
resurrection, giving a convinc- so long a time they might not 
ing proof in so long a time of suppose him to be a vision to 

.y Google 



it being himself that was seen 
(r$; S^tMt r^« oImW), lest they 
should regard the person seen 
as a phantasm. And he was 
not satisEed even with this, but 
he added the table as well, as 
he proceeds to relate. 

And sitting with them at table 
(<rvKi>t(d^>w) he commanded 
them (Acts i. 4). To this epi- 
sode then the Apostles them- 
selves continually appealed in 
proof of the resurrection, say- 
ing : We who ate and drank 
with him. And what he did 
when he appeared, he shews in 
the sequel, saying: "being seen 
of them and speaking of the 
things pertaining to the king- 
dom of God," 

(i) But since they were 
wearied and put about by what 
bad already taken place, and 
were in the future to go forth to 
engage in mighty contests; he 
revived them with discourses 
upon the future, and enjoined 
them not to go away from Jeru- 
s.den), but to await the promise 
of the lather. First he led them 
out into Galilee still af^ar and 
tremblins, in order that they 
UH^ht listen to his sayings in 
s<i\«riiy- After that, when they 
h.tit »> listened, and still re- 
iii.iiuei.) 40 days, he enjoined 
tt»-m not ti> <lfp.*rt from Jem- 
s.iU-m. i_ii) Why so? Just as 
Hit one permits a handful of 
S>>Ulifr9. ihut are about to ^11 
on a large army, to ro away. 

their eyes (l e. optical delusion). 
What then was he doing n ikt 
forty days appearing to tkemf 
He was conversing, he says, to 
them adinii the kingdom of God 
He conversed about that con- 
cerning which he spake even 
before his death not only in long 
discourses, to wit, that he would 
come in the glory of his father 
and sit on the throne of his 
glory ; though he had also per- 
mitted their eyes to behold the 
same on Tabor. (A) And very 
naturally. For the disdples 
were wearied and put about by 
what had already taken place ; 
that is, by his sufferings and 
death. And furthermore, since 
they were in the future to go 
forth unto mighty contests in 
preaching the Gospel, he en- 
couraged them with the hope 
of the kingdom which be prom- 
ised them and established their 
aHrighted souls. But not by 
appearing in the 40 days and by 
familiar discourses only about 
the kingdom was he content to 
comfort them, but also by the 
table as well, "and participal- 
ing with them of bread" 

Ephreh. — Not because he 
had any need thenceforth of 
food, but out of condescension, 
with a view to a dear demon- 
stration of his resurrectitHi. 

Chrts.— ( A) Wherefore also 
the .Apostles continually made 
this a proof of the resurrection, 
that "We ate and drank with 

^d by Google 



until ihey have donned their 
armour; nor allows horses to 
leap in front of the starting- 
point, until they have got their 
charioteer ; even so he did not 
lau nch them either on the battle- 
ground before the descent of 
the Spirit, lest they should be 
easily overcome and taken pris- 
oners by the superior numbers. 
And baide these reasons, there 
was another; namely, this: that 
it might not be said by some, 
that they left alone those whom 
they knew, and went to boast 
among strangers; thereforethey 
furnish the evidences of the 
resurrection before the eyes of 
them that crucified him, of them 
that buried him, in the very city 
in which the lawless deed was 
committed, so as to curb and 
bridle even all outsiders. For 
as soon as they that crucified 
him were to be seen actually 
filled with laith, it would be 
manifest that both the cross and 
the lawlessness of the crime 
were clearly demonstrated, as 
the proof of the resurrection 
would be overwhelming. In the 
next place that they might not 
say, " How then shall we remain 
among the froward slayers; who 
also are so many, whereas we 
are few and of little account?" 
S^r^I' Behold how he dispels 
the misgiving, saying, " But wait 
•u.1. for the promise of the 
Father, which ye have heard of 
me." And when did they hear, 

him after his resurrection." He 
then by eating confirmed the 
Apostles in the faith of the res- 
urrection and gladdened them 
with the promise of the king- 
dom; and because withal he 
was about to depart from them, 
he enjoined them not to depart 
from Jeruialem. (i. 3). 

EpHREM. — (i) And, since 
they were afcar, he first led 
them out into Galilee, in order 
that they might listen to bis 
sayings in security. And when 
they had so listened, lo, he still 
remained with them 40 days 
and enjoined them not to depart 
from Jerusalem and not to go 
forth to preach before receiving 
the Spirit, (ii) Just as no one 
permits his soldiers to mix in 
the fray before they have donned 
their armour, nor the steed with- 
out a charioteer, so without the 
coming of the Spirit he permits 
them not to enter the lists of 
battle and to be overcome. And 
again for the sake of many who 
were about to believe in Jeru- 
salem, he obliged them to re- 
main there. And again that 
the Jews might not say that 
they left alone those whom they 
knew and went out to strangers 
out of hatred or for glory; and 
that they may not be exasper- 
ated and revolt from them ; for 
this cause they furnish the good . 
news first unto them that cruci- 
fied him, in the very city where 
the lawless slaying of Christ 
was committed by them. In 

^d by Google 

».^g.y, v~,«.ir ^■ 

■Tsjrj^ jp fszLOLocr, 

frrjrr-.vnvr :3^ 

QUI nsow die 
ScuTt Fir .^K iie» siLmI(i 

ike err* ii^'i uI "T"^^ ^ :fiis 
a:p«E3Cun. js X •me wici 

tbe oatside 
migbt easily bdieve, 
seeuic tbe ilajrcfs of Christ 
jileit wrm bitfa ht bim, and 
.•fiTTii dta cmdfiiai him become 
jiuKjtLuot hb t e aui r g ctioa 
Aaa ss jaw 3e 3<it diac die disciples might 
out SET. " How sbaQ we remain 
jmt:n? the Oowani slayen," 
xad dia the^ should not flee 
^t^ his ascEBsioD, be dispelled 
rinsr misgrvings by tbe promise 
CI die Spirx i.sayii%) thai in 
tine giace he voold first bestow 
'•X on rifm In Older that t^ 
rjia h<;pe; as with some chain, 
^ xight keep them in Jeru- 
&«3. to sit down there and 
«ana£t the pcooiise ^ /iif fM^ 
Mvas »f lie Fadur, who by 
tmeaaa ot the prof^iet saith "I 
w-.I ::c(tr oat of my Spirit upon 

Chkts. — "The wAuA ye 
ieitri /nrm me." For, saith 
be. I speak it not now merely 
and Dewly. but lo, even now I 
hare promised and I do not 
th^l which b &Is& 

And wben then did they hear, 

Here we have a long excerpt given in the Armenian to 
Ephrem. which yet stands in the Greek Cbrysostom. One's first 
intpre^ioa is that the ascrptioo of the Armenian M5S is at fauh. 
But this cannot be the case; for a large portion of the Greek 
extract of Cbrysostom is given eo nomine in the Armenian. And, 
as we shall see later on, in one other case at least the Catena in 
successive extracts gives the same or equivalent comment, first 
lo Cbrysostom and then to Ephrem. The amplifications and 
rearrangements of Chrysostom's text are also noticeable. The 

.y Google 


same features characterise everywhere the ArmeniaD text, and 
are no doubt partly due to the Armenian translator and his 
editor, but partly also to the actual text of Chrysostom used. As 
regards rearrangement, we may notice how a passage, translated 
above from Savile, p. Gis, 1. 24, is juxtaposed in the Armenian 
with material found in Savile, p. 611. Yet Savile, p. 612, II. 2-23, 
arc given in the Armenian nearly word for word as Chrysostom's 
and as a commentary on the words " The which ye beard from 
me." This paragraph is clearly misplaced in the Greek Chry- 
sostom, and as clearly in its right place in the Armenian Ephrem. 
Whence we may infer the priority of the Ephrem. 

On pp. 24, 25 of the Catena we have another long excerpt 
headed 'Efhr. Chrys.,' which may represent maner common to 
both commentaries, to which the compiler therefore prefixed both 
names. It corresponds to Savile's text, p. 612. 35, beginning koI 

ta'ovcrv, as far as p. 613. 2^ JXX' iV t^ irfrrqnxrT^. As USUal, the 

matter is rearranged in the Catena, and the passage 613. 3 «wc ii 
PawTur^rir^t to 613. 9 imi tpS mvupirDr is introduced On p. 6is, 
L 39, after otrov tiinjitinwr*. 

Nor is this all. The reasons entered into in the Greek text 
(Savile, 612. 44 Ti Kpivn to 613. 3 i^rrain^t taipir) why the Spirit 
fiist came as a dove and subsequently as a fire, are omitted in the 
Catena ; and instead of them we read simply " and of this we will 
presently set forth the reasons." Again in p. 613, II. 21-23, '» • 
place of the pass^e about St. Paul, we have in the Catena the 
following: "And Israel of old fasted in great fi^ar, and then the 
sea was divided." Besides these larger changes, the Armenian 
presents many small transpositions of text, yet forms a consistent 
and integral text from beginning to end. It runs thus : 

"EpHR. Chrys. — And not only does he declare himself to be 
greater beyond comparison, but be also shews his disciples to be 
greater than John, saying 'Ye shall baptise' (or 'be baptised')) 
because they too were about to baptise others in the holy Spirit 
And he said ' Ve shall be baptised' and not 'I baptise you in the 
holy Spirit,' to teach us to be humble. But that it was he 
himself who baptised them by the Spirit is clear from the 
testimony of John, who said 'He shall baptise you with the holy 
Spirit and with fire.' 

"And that they received the Spirit in the upper room is clear. 
But how saith he 'Ye shall be baptised,' when there was no 
*aier in the upper room ? I answer that the Spirit is more 

.y Google 

zf raiLOLOCY. 

r ^u .uiiJ. z =:e v^cr ac&. Id tbe same vay 
s DCTcr anointed with 

=^ X sanix^ rsascn. Tbey bad long before been 
3 -sas- T« _":cn. F:r i' pcblicans were baptised, 
amen, ainrt ^er- ziet- :«:re wice ir iy to be baptised and to 
iacnse wiit ise 3i:i7 Scirx. For altbocgfa with us it b usual to 
sacnse wrii vacs- nd Sciri bcti a: ootx, at that time and in tbe 
OBc ^' :3e iiac:r:i^ die cwc ±.=ga ww separate in time. 

* Lc 18 a^ estcoasise sere a pcint which we noticed above— 
aaiaeiT wiry Lnice (Lv ced his history into two books. The 
zxaaaa s dial in his ^o^pei Luke relates whatever Christ did and 
Ei;ii : 'zvt io dtoe Acts ex' the Apostles be rdates whatever tbe 
orhei vamiiycxi — the hoiv Spirit— did and said. But at that time 
tiie lairer. h.maeif the comforter, wroi^ht many thiimis together 
wtta Christ. j(Ht as eren now Christ also works together with 
fa::n. u also then while he still walked with us. But then Christ 
worked through tbe fiesh, but now by means <^ the apostles. 
In like manner the Spirit af<M«time entered into the vii^'s 
womb and ^shioned tlie divine body ; but now he entered into 
the souls of the apostles. And aforetime it descended in the 
form of a dove upon Christ, but now in the form of fire upon tbe 
apostles. The reason of which we will presently expound. 

" But forasmuch as he promised the Spirit before his passion, he 
now repeats his promise, without yet actually fulfilling it; lest the 
disciples should think that the Spirit was mere promise or without 
any substantive activity {or realisation). Wherefore be says, 
'a/ler tkese noi many days' He revealed not unto them when, 
lest they should be indolent and slumber. But that it was at 
band, he did say, yet revealed not unto them when; that they 
might not despair, but watch in confidence because of tbe near- 
ness of the time. How then can we wonder that he did not 
reveal the last day {lit of completion), when he willed not to 
reveal a day so near at hand. And very justly, that with constant 
watching they might await. For no one attains to grace without 
practising sobriety, in order that he may not taint the gift at the 
outset. Seest thou not what Elias said to his disciple ; ' If thou 
seest me raised aloft, it shall be to thee also'? And Christ 
required feith from those who came to him, and then healed 
them. And Israel of old mortified the flesh in great fi»r, and 
then the sea was parted. So also those who dye garments 

.y Google 


purple, begin by dipping the garment which is to take the dye 
repeatedly in alum, that the bloom of the colour may not at once 
fade away. Wherefore Christ first of all filled his disciples with 
solicitude, and then on Pentecost the holy Spirit came and 
liilfiUed the promise of Christ that 'Ye shall be baptised in the 
hdy Spirit.' " 

The Armenian text is divided into chapters, each containing 
several sections of commentary by different authors. The first 
section, however, in each chapter is always acephalous, but on 
examination is usually found to be Chrysostom. - Yet we some- 
times find such an acephalous piece which has no equivalent in 
the Greek text Here is an example. It is in explanation of 
Acts L 13 (Catena, p. 35): 

"Simon the zealot is called by Matthew and Mark Simon the 
Canaanite. Perhaps he is called the zealot in the Hebrew ; and he 
is proved from many sources to have been the son of Joseph the 
father of God, and brother of the Lord. And Judas the (brother) 
of James was brother of the same Simon and son of Joseph. He 
too was a brother of the Lord. He himself wrote the catholic 
epistle, which after bis name is called the Epistle of Jude ; in the 
beginning of which, out of humility, he, instead of calling himself 
brother of the Lord, writes brother of James. And it is at once 
dear that he it is whom Matthew and Mark call Lebaeos and 
Thadeos. It is not the case that they mean one person and Luke 
another, but they call one and the same person by different 
names. And no wonder; for among the Hebrews there were 
plenty of people with two or more names. Hence the disagree- 
ment of the Evangelists in respect of Thadeos and Judas of 
James is one of name only and not of person. For of the 
apostles first chosen by Christ none was lost except Judas the 
betrayer. It is clear, therefore, that the other Thadeos who was 
with Abgar was one of the Seventy, as is testified to by their very 
tombs. For Thadeos of the Seventy died in Armenia, in the 
province of Artazu ; but Judas of James, who in Matthew and 
Mark is called Thadeos one of the Twelve, died in Ormi, in 
Armenia. Thus the agreement of the Evangelists in respect of 
the names of the apostles is dearly proved." 

The above can hardly be Chrysostom 's ; and yet the Armenian 
tiiuislatOT cannot have added it de suo, though he may have 
imerpolated the reference to Artazu as the death-place of Thad- 
daeos. Note that Joseph is called in it fether of God, a way of 

.y Google 

-1- ^ =-£"Z- Z. 

■ t=r -nt: Zirxx n^r^ sscrxi^sam^ the 
u 3 :n ^K -K^ xsni s lie oootiiiaous 

i— a nn:l iCS nc; we --r i— wi-nrar y. 

I jftit Thus. — S-i: do ihoa mark 

Fcf he did not 
xad T-liy. nor did he 
s»T -rw i-OsT >ad shameless 
rrues-siccd wmcfa." But he 
sa : : ^^ v::h ecdrc siiDplidiy 
mb^i hid happened. And be 
dxs 3X eren say "the betray 
■B er." bet hastens (o transfer to 
TTi otbets the guilt. " Was guide 
rru-XK- of Hem thai took /esMS," he 
Knv, savv But having acquitted 
iu7ui'm him of ibe wickedness, be finnly 
■w n puts upon him the un of being 

.y Google 



the guide of them that took 

And he does not recall that 
which Jesus foretold many times 
about him, nor even in what 
place David spake concerning 
Judas, his betrayer; for exam- 
ple, "The mouth of a sinful 
man gaped upon me." But he 
merely recalls the requital and 
punishment unto the consolation 
of his hearers. That is to say, 
he wishes to shew, from the 
punishment meted out to Judas, 
the necessity of the present 
action being taken ; to wit, the 
completion of the number 
twelve; of which completion 
he hastens to speak. 

Ephreh. — "For," says he, 
" ie was numbered togeiker with 
us" (i. 17). Who? Judas 
clearly. He has shewn forth 
the Lord's love of man, who 
chose him, although he knew 
him. "He was numbered milk 
us," he says, '^and received his 
lot in this ministry." He calb 
the apostleship a lot, to shew 
that they have everything from 
the grace of God. Just as afore- 
time God chose the Leviies for 
his own portion, but gave not 
to them their share along with 
the tribes of Israel. 

Chrys. — And Peter enlai^es 
concerning the betrayer because 
the wage of betrayal itself was 
herald of the punishment 

One more specimen of this interweaving into one continuous 
whole of comments scattered wide apart in the Greek. This 

fiiXarra ■'wramrnu, ut S<i£o ifit 

quv lai Otax* TOT cXqptw T^ itanmim 

625. 12. B. ort t.aTifpt$iaiiiinit 
fi ow tuur, ^a^l, flia Tovra irptxr^m 
frifMf wfK^ak\tv6ai, &irrt ftaprupa 
■foiirAa (it rit iKtiiw ntirov. cal 
ipa wAs TmrMavtiAoi- fiifuinu, irar- 
ragei awi rvr ypalpmp tidXty^iuyott 
Efll eiiit wtpl rou Xptareo Kiyttp 
oWcK, ^ irpotitrt wiAXaKtt airit. 
ui ov Xi'yn. frAi T^ npoiovua aurov 
liilirifrai' olor, ar^ita AfiaproXov, «ol 
rripa AoXunr ttr ifii qroij^A}' oXX 
hSa T^ Ttiuepiax avrou /nfvor T^y 
fi>W')> (treujiranh toCto yap atrou 

<rr JTDu rqr ^iXat0p<rtrlar, Sn KaTi]|M- 
Siuiiu'fitc f*, <^9i, iriv iifuv, Koi iXajft 
rJ» Aripor r^ ducon'oT ravnic. 
lAjpoF ti airrir warraj(in> aaXit, 

If ui Tfr itXay^, ml a»a/ufu^mv 
tiTpvr rttfT ItaXalmv, hi A ^aav avTOV 
fiXqpMaro. taSailip roiit XniiVat. 
ui {rttoTpiffii r«s wtpl o^roO, Sn i 
t^ wpoioviat iu(r6iti o&r^ tal rqt 
np«piat 7>'yoM «5p^£- 

.y Google 



time I give the Armenian on the left and arrange oppomte the 
passages of the Greek which correspond, taking them out of 
their Greek order, but giving dause by clause a reference to 
Savile's edition, page and line. 

Catena, p.42. Chsys. — "And 
they pui forward two, Joseph 
whom ihey catted Barsaioi, 
him thai was named Justus and 

Peter himself did not put 
them forward, but according to 
their unanimous will. He only 
declared that the action was not 
from himself, but was from 
above, according to prophecy. 

And they did not put forward 
many, that the regret might not 
be greater. At the same time 
(they did) not (put forward) 
one only, for the choice was by 

And why does he mention 
Joseph by his surname? In 
order to distinguish him from 
others of the same name ; for 
there were many among them 
of the same name, such as James 
(son) of Alphaeus and (the son 
oO Zebedaeus, the Simons and 
the Judases. Or it was to sig- 
nify his moral virtue that he 
bore the name Barsabas. 
■ "And they prayed with one 
accord and said. Thou Lord 
which knowest the hearts of ail 
men, shew the one of these two." 
Rightly do they in prayer give 
the choice to God, because often 
the chosen of mankind is inferior 
in the eye of God, 

Savile, A 624. 12 k»i ctrr^iu 

624. 14 Oi^ svr^ nvrovr tanfia, 
aXXd nirm. rqr •fnnofi di oMt 
(Iui))'ij*iuiu, icifac tSM airr^r avrw 
oftrati, aXX S»m$a cori wpalfiiiniaw ' 
iar€ t' f i iyy r jt yiyoiitr,iA &&iircaXM- 

B 626. 8 aot ioTifaat, ^api't, iiia. 

aSv/ila yiwtftai, oiix ifarXiK it wpor 
Ttfi^W igtaar' oXXo ituarit on 

iToXXiuit ■■ r. X. (See below.) 

A 624. 16 'tma^, 'p'loi, Tw 
KoXoufMHW Bapaaffif, it nrixXi)^ 
'lovimi. wrof tiA r^c dftanfuu 
ap^ArtpQ riOriKtw. iirtl nil tr raw 
itriMrrikiHt iroXXal iiutm/wu fan*' 
'Iokm/Sm i Zf0(Saiov, laxtifiot 6 rov 
AX^oidu ' Zi'^r nirpet, Zt/UM> i 
ZijXvr^t. 'loiiiat 'loKiffov ml 'lovta 
6 'loKaptinti. aXXac 6i xol fi«n- 
ffoX^ fiioo, lOBc di sal tcpeatpiatiu 
fv 1; onoitairia. 

A 634. 22 Kit) irpmr*u(afUKM 
ibrof' aiiKipu napSiayyArraTsarmr, 
ofdiit^w in i^Xt^ tK rovmr rw 

B 626. 10 oAXd ittKwin on roX- 
Xoiic 6 iropa atfipitwou rt'fuof, napa 
rf 61^ iKoTTUp tori. lal cou^ n 

.y Google 



" Thou Ltf^d which knowest <rv Kupi* napiicyyiwirra vin»9 

ik^ hearts, shew the one." Thou iralti^. cru,f4V<'<'- aUtiiicai- 
and not ourselves. And they pvc Ka(^ur^iian,9 ■laXaCtru'. [aah 
suitably call God the knower of yip roinov aifulaBat i\l»lP, oi/xi Tuv 
hearts. For this is the differ- I£u4».] 
ence between the choice of God 
and of man. For man looks 
into the lace, but God into the 
heart Wherefore, say they, 
"ShoB the one." They were 
sure that one of them could not 
£ul. And they did not say 
"Choose," but "Shew the cho- 
sen one." They knew that one 
of them had been chosen before- 

B 626. 13 Ovr«c iOippovr, on 
iriuT«c tra iii ytniaSiu ' Kal oix throy 

yirm, ^aif, t» iftXifii' tlHrit 
irarra npoupiirSai r^ St^. (■ roimtr 

" To take the plaee in this B 626. 15 Xax»y rir cXq^ior i^t 
witastfy and apostleship." For Staiuwiac Tavrtft ml anixrToXqr, Ji* 
there was also another spiritual yap mil SKkn tunoria. 
ministry, though inferior; but 
here they ask to receive the 
ruik of apostleship. 

Ephrem. — "From which Ju- 
das fell away, to go to his own 
place'' Not to that which is 
full of light, which the Lord 
promised him, but into the dark 

A 624. 25 KoXut Xfyouotv tutantu 
ri dfiapri)/ui, Stincnirrtr ten iidpn/pa 
aiTovain, oi rtXtoraiofrtt r^ dptSitir, 

Chrys. — They do well to 
remember his sin, shewing that 
they require a witness. They 
do not seek to increase the 
Dumber, but to fill up a loss. 

We must now consider some of the passages where Greek and 
Armenian texts or the Armenian form alone reflect Western 

In Acts i. 18 Blass notes as the Western reading : aftac iu» olr 
itr^aaro }[t«piar tit pMrSov T^t atiKtat, neat }li)(r(r rir rpaj|^Xot> airrov cal 
*P^ ytrSfMnit ikiofatr a. r. \. The Other form of text omits mI 
ii^tatr rir TfrajpfXiw avroii. 

.y Google 

?t^-w. =aisr :3e ::iLe ■ 3" Z !ir- 'a—o cm ■* sxl immcdiatdy after 
:=« wcr-2 S..^ -1 % ■ .iniiw 3n-Ie, 625. 34). tbe Catena 

" ^c-^jr=^T ae . «. Pras" iu c- j ^ ajso the seitaice which 

-e-ii's p-t :» .Eocs. 3«r rw -■ .miMiimww ^ cnJcz to die cocn- 
«— -i: .1 :::uR w^iu wers Jiixu a' zse J«**. Est that be fell on 
-.;Mr r^"^ lEU :v;sc. K3I xs xrves gjssuei. ccS. a like this. F(^ 
tt^ -1^.:: :.:» ^ui?^ i^;imt VTr-a-! :»n37 » scasg^cd hiiPitrlfi ai>d 
ic T;-r_-wii JK=« 7B 3w ^'zasi 3w Fnsay aod tbe Satorday. 
■ W"i » Ei« fwu^cn BJ JOtt '•rrmr skkiv. :ae cord was cut by 
«:!..-: tv x-ixv. "K fc-I. J UTS amnBixs but «^ pccnd oot But 
.:w <:^?^-i n .-K jucr;- -::^ kso ani 3 3is fxs brooght togetber 
jiw .-J . jr—i .1 cT-tsiiit-n -o --Tiw jou xa xiBPOws end and 
^w i>«;ii: ;ii.i «:t:v:3 "cffi or Jim 3e TfecaracT rf bc£-fin." 
^ft; «« >-n! jff-a.3;T at. ainu n :m; Wa^r» readily wbidi 

j'.?i->;-\U5- ;r< nci.iis. ' .%c jw jaow sunt t aniBC be owned that 
.lit; « .->iir^ .tiTi h^n; uuKS iks 1 ijr^ai J ae a ncc T o^ the two 

X »«. Kf Jv-i n.-cc:-j r.yjx -;ie .VTnai^ai itasK* di the Ads 

.\.-tn;»ij« iu-iiM S- iM^iCiisilcri 3v -jw W«n» 01 Plpbs quoted 

^Tw .--/imiivniu ■• n. im .."ait-w «oii» a; Ttrriy ifae leadiog 
•vwiftu ,«• 1 -m* ■ ■iiiMi^-. uni xoi viiuie sunr .b jiae pnaeoted 

.\-,-.» lu ■*.*■*« Titu u -jiw 'J,-wk CirTSiaaBni a passage 

OiK"."s— ' ';i Jlu ittiitu i\ t.-sis- ^jr-sc 3W Xi«nr«ao arise and 
ibi.k, ' ^[ ^ic" ,-jmiiiuiul'' larnu jiin nu Xtai-TetiK: idr their 
ijiittiriii.i.« j^JnX*. ■««=■ ,■!« Jic" ^inuu J*;?iir"tt Ji 3uB , . , 

!;t jhr rJiim /i 'i.->ub- ~'!n-si ii-t*;, iw sho. Ajii xt : A«:i b his 
t>ri ma itiit;!;- Jvnwrv Ttti,-^'-!:^ ^rtjiiy.' 11., Hn 'wacc i^aod began 
!«-*iuH.-- ■ -'J (.-ituv nr ow j'n';''j«i win ±Kiit: Jto; rteieaiple. 
Stf ^wdjlt-^ iiw twin wiii j> useM ,^.jy. ' 7^ "inr Ttassn ifaaihjs 

rt^;t '«ci^ WVUtt, 3UC Mlitilt^rni « nr n m Slu'IK 3^5£- K\ tbOC- 

HK<; -h: trti^ :trs(:ii){; Iti^i- ^nuu, -uni nutC'i)^ x sthl mcce ample 
^ C 

£?HAUL. — Ijut wait: iii;* .'ini: t «i» )v^-:uuw k was vmried 

.y Google 


In Savile (653. 30) we read timi hi tftatrm, in mi qyvdn ircpitranu-. 

Either then we have here another wrong ascription or Chrysos- 
tom's commentary had common matter with Ephrem's. 

Acts iii. 13. The usual text has 'IijodCf br upiit tiin irapcfiaKOrt Kol 
^fW^acrA KOTO trpdintwor IlciXdrsv, npirairrot (mivou airoXuKr. The 
Western text has wa/wS. tit tpi<nr ni lip. k. nit. nnXdTou TDu mriAuttr 
ovror Sikowm. Of this reading BAorrot for ■/x'vatToc, the Greek 
Cbrysostdm, accurately rendered here by the Armenian, shews 
dear traces. The first comment on it (Savile, 657. 7) is as follows : 

&io ra iyA^iiara' xal Srt IliXarot IfifXtr diroXufU', icai Sn iiUis, 
inlrm/ fiik^vawTin, oit iitf<X^aaT<. But On the next page (Savile, 
658.43) he comments thus: BiA rovro airobt dtaiuiar^ut rqi tpiaiat 
rifC twi nAdrotr . , . oi yip in i IIxKaTot ^Stkiftrtr aM>v oiroXuirau ul 
aiiK tn4 tff X^uavrot, ak\i upSramit iiitivoir avoKvtui . . . Koi to hitA 
wp6<r»w(nr rov DiXifrov apr^irttaSiu, ovk $p ti roxir, iKtlrou ^ovXofitvav 

The &ct that he corrects the Western reading after using it 
leads us to infer that he had a commentary based on a Western 
text Perhaps the words t^c xpiirtut echo the other Western gloss 
in this passage, viz. lU xptVu' after mpcdunar*. 

Acts iii. 22. Both the Greek and Armenian texts of Chrysostom 
add rpit Tovt waripat after H»i<r^ pif tlmr. The same Western 
gloss is in most of the versions. 

Acts iv. 9 «' 17/itic oiipipov aratptr6pt6a. The Westem text adds 
i^' iitmw. In the Greek text of Chrysostom (Savile, 665, 1. 36) 
we read: waoMi <Xcy«' iiaKiare pitr ixp^' arttpanovaSai >inat iirX nirroit, 
KM in titpyiTat atraajpirriirSiu ' win ii Kol KpiriiitSa tVi tbtpytalq dt^pwiriRi 

irSntiur, alxl irXavirdni, ot>xi Bvfa<TTav, o£j(l JM(ov, Here the Armenian 
version adds d^' bpur after Kpif6p€6a, which seems to be a reminis- 
cence of the Westem gloss. 

Acts iv. 34 al Aj dcOMTarrfr (nol iitiyrivrts ri/f rov 6tai ivipyttaw) 

ipaSvpaihr Jjpar ^rqv npit rhr 6ti». Here D adds the words 
bracketed. The Arm. com. under no heading runs thus; "But 
they having heard [and being not frightened, but rather embol- 
dened, they took refuge in the true succour and in the invincible 
{alii unapproachable) power and] with one accord they raised 
their voices and said." Here the words in square brackets seem 
to correspond to the gloss of D. In the Greek Chrysost. (Savile, 
671. 14) is found the same text. 

Acts V. 8 oiTcipiA] lU irpii aiitiir Uirpm' thti fioi, tl rovwroa ro X"^'* 
iatinaSt. Here for dnVfUM (I D has ^npmV* <ra (I Spa. In Savile, 

.y Google 


678. 41 (Migne, p. 103), the Greek com. has dta ri yip luiHro 
I'pctT^at ii/iat Ip^; 4 dqXor, in «r (tUc. Therefore Chrysostom 
had the Bezan reading. The Armenian equally implies it. 

Acts vi. 8 Zn'^OMf bi frXqfHjt' xipuot xai iuwdfuuK' Here E has 
*iirr«vc for fluMfuuf. In Chrysost. (Savile, 695. 9) we read wMtn f 
X"pf ^T ^r*<f>aTtf iinfr$*i/ ip' ovk diri ri}r itlcrtitt; tCtifKot Jn. iiiapni- 
pq<r( yap air^ bru on v\i,pitt num»t Jr. The passage is also givCD 

above (Savile, 693. 20) with trurrcMr. Tlie Arm. Chry's. has the 
same commentary. There can be no question that Chrys. had 
trt'oTMc in his text. 

Acts vi. 9 rvr XryQfuntf luBtprirmv. la Chrys. Greek com. we 
read oi Vu^iaf AmXtvOtpM oSn> KoXoCiq^. The Arm, Chrys. follows 
the Arm. Vulgate in the reading Lityomm and comments on it 
thus: "Here the writer points emphatically to the number of 
those who rose up against him. Not only those in Jerusalem, but 
many others, who at different times bad been carried captive lo 
various places, and afterwards had returned. Partly they con- 
sisted oi Libyans from those who shared the marches of E^pt 
and India (i. e. Ethiopia), and others from among those of 
Gyrene, which is beyond Alexandria, and some Asiatics, who 
were trained in the tongue and lived in -Jerusalem, that they 
might not always be going and coming, who had their syna- 
gogues to hear the law and pray." This commentary can hardly 
be due to the Armenian translator only. It too accurately marks 
the difference between the Hebrew-speaking Jews of Asia Minor 
and the Western Jews of Gyrene, Libya and Alexandria who 
talked Greek. The Arm. Vulgate indeed reads Li&yorum, but it 
would seem that Chrysostom had it also. 

Acts vi, 10 Kol ovt urxoitr imvr^inu T^ 9o^<f [r^ oBo]} ir ovr^] 'Hi rtf 
irvfVfUTi [t^ ^)"Vj ^ i^akti ' [Bii ri ikSy)(tvr^i avrovc {D iUm riKiyxmiTo) 

im' airoi ftrra icamft wapfufvlat}. DE add the woras bracketed, and 
D still further adds ^17 SupdfKnx ayn^iSakiutti rg SKifiti^. The Greek 
Chrysost. (Savile, 695. 30) comments : mil ipa, oiAt uvnl al iaiiorrtt 

Itaprvpovaui (ji^iyxBrfaar yap dv) aXX' dn-Xui iripovt lUtrOcvvrot, tra ft^ 

*ifn iniiptiat tli-at ri xpayfuu Here the words which Savile brack- 
eted seem to testify to the gloss beginning Si^ ro tkiyxfaSai. 
However, as they follow after a citation of the words r6n unt^Xor 
Sripat, and give the reason why the Jews suborned fedse evidence, 
this is open to doubt ; especially as the passage in the Armenian 
runs thus: "And since they were ashamed to simply snatch him 
off, having no real complaint to make against him, see what they 

.y Google 


do. The juices do not themselves bear witness, suspecting that 
they wilt incur the reproach of being fraudulent and unjust, so 
they suborn others for money to say," etc. 

However, the rest of the glosses of verse lo seem to lie behind 
of the Armenian commentary upon it (p. 134), which is as follows: 
" They were not only worsted {or confounded, i. e. ikiyxtaSat), but 
also were not able to oppose him face to face. For in powerful 
disptUation from the prophets he led ihem round and upset them. 
Perhaps he proclaimed the discontinuance of the divine law ; or 
even if he did not proclaim it openly, yet he had hinted at the 
same. For if he himself proclaimed it openly, there was no need 
of the proselytes and of the Mse witnesses." In the Greek text 
of Chrysostom (Savile, 695. 51) the above passatfe is not traceable. 

On p. 136 of the Armenian commentary we seem further to 
trace the gloss /i«ra traoiit irapfiiiiriar of verse 10: "What less than 
the apostles did he (Stephen) receive F In signs he was not 
iitfenor,and in boldness of speech he was more illustrious, whereby 
the tyrants were stabbed (or cut) to the quick." On p. 137 : " If 
we ask why the light of grace shone in the face of Stephen, it is 
clear that the completeness of bis &ith made him full of grace. 
As to whom be (i. e. 'Luke) bore witness that he was full of faith 
and of the holy Spirit. Since to have grace by faith not only for 
speech and for healing, but also against any evil spirit, is bestowed 
by the grace of the Spirit, which governs all in all." In the 
above we seem to have an echo of the gloss r^ 6rpio m verse 10. 

vii. 31 iicTtSimt 6i abrav [irapd (E tIc) rof irora/iir] dniXoro airrov q 
tvyanip *apaii. ChrySOStOm's Greek (Savile, 701. 27) is : ayrrpa^tjf 
n^at TfNti i* Tf oucf rov irorpdc. irt roiyvn ra arOpenrita atni^irur6ij, «il 
tppn^ap airit, rt(r« rati Otev q eltekopia ittixSt] StoXdfiiroifira. 31 itrtSiiiTa 
bi avTor ortiXrro i; Ovyanip *apai> k. r, \. In the Armenian text the 
same passage runs thus : " ' Who also was nourished in the house 
of his father for three months' Whom Paul declares they hid in 
faith ; because the beauty of his countenance gave hope of the 
grace of God to save him. But being able no longer to hide 
him, though they wished not to, they cast out into the river. 
And on the tasting out of him, Ihe daughter of Pharaoh took him 
up." Here Ihe italics mark the citations from the text of the 
Armenian Vulgate. The Armenian implies the gloss <{r thv 
witrafiir, and before it has the same word by which it renders 
(■cnWtTOf in V, 21. Mark that the Greek Chrysostom uses a 
different word, tppt^, and omits the gloss. 

.y Google 

wriicil the 

: 3»T^ae be«o 

T. -- :^—.7^ r:ii ^^1~.= — lie a- .a "w^i^i I j«s ob the 

_. ^ - : .^ ^ _ -^ r' t -- i? i:= rts,rn=i jcr fsi: ibr the 

.-« :-T~i- ■« .. Ts. r:r — - i;e w.r-L i:::;-^ le STcad abroad. 
'""• i.T-i -"^ Tr= -s: 5z-Tni.e ta:" i-aaf* i n *"ri lie SaiEaritans, 
»^- =-r«r"_* nr^ roufa^ :i- Zjn^ ■■; sdsx ^e a g a^ben . But 

';•* .--^ ~. -=-^T s.ii «U -K/r ,u^e ;»-• .-^ icE lisa in otbo' 
r:-3( ri- i niiie J.r ~:-ss ::-' :>:'^"^ -nmc:! lie ■■ord of life, 
Z-Z.1 -.'--:.. z ::w «£t;3 j:c :«e-E-~ai r-a,a 3= occsr: aod con- 
:^i-ir :>. « :■=;s*!= -rrr.r ^ i-.Tit i.nm"ir 3e bejow. Tbcy 
■*:rr - ^^^ »-:ci;-;— :: ciL rrEs:i<ra;iis ry i»e»=s ct s^gns; then 
:j:^y ^:rr-:-; rrr: — r: :ira mn s::f>s-ri urtirg eise," etc The 
j>.-t: ij i.- IS tne ^:r-:s i^-izi "-— i-V.— ' s nx is tbe Greek. 
'•V z*; :> .-■■* s a St "It ~t2. 12. Ti r. i^* tic .\riiKiuan once 
3iO--* cv-.^.ts -_Lji f:is; *.-:r ^trrrui. lae ci=rch vfaich before 
SCc;,.:t£: * ic^:^ rjc;i.=i^; - ist;' =':rt ^;is Sooo souls, laxlae 

• T iM a3-s Jne^n imbc ""P 'f" ■poc 
<_■, jri« jjiitr ent-h} it •.« riirsr T*r («*ar i* ap^tmrJ 

I xoAW <**-•> ri l4(t.«T<>(». Here I space the addi- 
iiaiic ->y lie 3«za:i teit. Tbe Amreniao Catena dtes the 
t.-c\^r'i:a^ :o ihe Ar=:. Vul^are. aod then comments thus 
iiie ;!tie: '"O: Ccrrsostoa": ''Haecce verba confiteotis 
r(.ics SU09; et hiec in pur^donem sui dicebat taoquam 
ji.iscE ci. Sed oponuit de profuodis cordis_/fer^ eiplorare, 
<j L-Apiaret Vide tameo ilium imniundum omntno simul- 
^ij.i^uLti, et ]aqu«is malorum vindtum iodissolubili vinculo, 
Iti tin; above the words fiere et plorare echo the end of 
£.1!) .;!u^ just as wudorum does its beginning. The Greek 
1.1^. k, 714- 24) also echoes the gloss. For after citing 
J4 111 tlie usual form, it comments thus: Aior inro rafibkat 

.y Google 


fXToro^imi, iiow xXoCffai itaX irtrd^trni' A ii d^ovwtrti /uvo* rinim 
waul, tt Spa, ^qirir, &^difltT(d am' rovro (fvw, ur ou avyxi'p^Oirrot b 
o^rft (' f (Xavtrir, oXX' tAx ml roit SfXi^^iKf /loro* dirayoptufic. Here, 

as often, the commeataior reveals his knowledge of the Western 
text, but seems by implication to challenge the correctness of its 

Acts a.. 5: (0 tha bi' rtt tt, Kipu; 

(ii) i Sc [Kufiior fiirtr] iya tl/u 'lifoait, if ai SiBKnr. 

(liij [(TKAqpilr not vpir ninpa Xaim'fdv. 

(iv) TfMfUB* re rat Bailor ittit ' KiJpit, ri fit 6tKtts n-H^trai]. 

For reference I number the clauses. The words bracketed in (ii) 
are a Western gloss, which, however, has got into many non- 
^Vestern texts. But (iii) and (iv) are in no Greek codex — not 
even in D — yet are reckoned by Blass to the Western text. 

Now, the Catena has the following (p. 170) : 

"Chrys. — And the Lord said: I am Jesus, whom thou perse- 
cutest (So also in Savile, 721. 18.) 

Think not thai (kou JigHest against men, but against Cod. 
(So in Savile, 721. 19, 20.) 

But get thee on thy feet and go into the city and it shall be told 
thee what thou art to do. 

Mark how he does not at once adduce (ivayti) everything, but 
Jirst so/tens his understanding and hard temper." (So in Savile, 
731. 25, 36 &pa vmt oi( ti6i»t iravro aiir^ (Vo^ti, a^a /liror irpafiaXdrrft 
aiiTOO r^v StdmiaF, koI ii lu aapiicAtitTO AiAvirii' air^ xPt"^''^ iXntdat, koI 
art ara0Xi^iJ) 

Here the reference to fighting not against men but against 
God is clearly a paraphrase of " Why kickest thou against the 
pricks?" Therefore Chrysostom had (ii). The other gloss (iv) 
is as clearly implied in the phrase " softens his understanding," 
etc This last gloss is also implied in the Greek Chrysostom 
(Savile, 721. 14, 15): X<y<n>i 9i xai ^>^ brip/SoX^ wo^ciue itdku' «i1 
oamrXTyof. &\i rovro* ft^rav (tr^/Mxro, mal ia^tatr tArov rhy Svitoir 
rf ^i$if, £oT« aMn atovtrai rA 'Kryipttpa. 2aouX, laaiiK, k. r. X. But 

if there remained any doubt that Chrysostom's text bad the 
Western glosses on this passage in their entirety, it is removed 
by the lact that Chrysostom's and Ephrem's commentaries here 
overlap in a manner which proves that they are derived from a 
single source. For the Catena (p. 169) has the following excerpt 
of Ephrem, which my reader must compare with that of Chry- 
sostom just above translated from the Catena (p. 170) and also 
given with an addition in Savile, p. 721 : 

^d by Google 


" Ephrem.— Thus since he blinded him with light, he UrriJUd 
him, and with awful fear of his glory he quenched his angry 

spirit {= col lafftom avrou tin Bv/iir ry if>6fif SavilC, 731. I4), and 

with gentle voice he softened him (cp. irpoimkami Savile, 721. 25, 
which word is also in the Armenian Chrysostom). Thereby also 
he was induced to take heart. And since he feared to wound the 
lowliness of our Lord, which was revealed by his gentle utterance ; 
and was struck with terror lest he offend his majesty, which by 
overpowering light daxzled him. And while he lay on the 
ground dazed not after the voice, but before the voice, rapt tntA 
astonishment (^= Sa/iffif') as to who out of heaven had blinded 
him, for of course Jesus was, as he supposed, not yet risen from 
the dead. But when he said to him accusing him (cp. aXX' (yniX<r 
Savile, 721. 16): Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? What 
wrong have I done thee that thou so behavest unto roe (so 
Chrysostom, Savile, 721. 16, 17 ftowoimixi Xiym, rl rap t/un> piya ^ 
lUKpoy !fiuatpi»Qt ravra iroi«ic,-) ? He fainted at the thought whether 
do I persecute because of the Lord of heaven, and not rather 
persecute him who dwells in heaven. So he asks : Who ait thou, 
Lord? at once acknowledging himself his servant. Who art 
thou. Lord, that art persecuted in thy heaven? For I persecute 
that Jesus who is among the dead along with his disciples." 

This excerpt is followed in the Catena by the piece of Chry- 
sostom already translated and beginning: "And the Lord said," 
etc After which is another excerpt of Ephrem, as follows (p. 

"Ephrem. — And while then he was trembling (=Tp(fwO 
because of the events which happened to him and was smitten 
with terror (? SapPo») and /ear lest he should not rise from the 
ground where he lay, and lest the Ught of which he was amerced 
should not be restored to him, and his teeth chattered with fear, 
lest punishment should overtake him greater than that which he 
received, he gives to him hope of clemency and that he should 
regain his sight" (^nal At' iv vaptKtktiitro, KitKnt atrr^ XPV^* 
iXrliai «al 5n d«t^Xr^(( Savile, 721. 26). 

After which we have in the Catena (p, 170) the following: 

"Chrys. — But he did not instantly heal him on the spot where 
he blinded him. 

Ephreu. — In order that all Damascus may come and see him 
affrighted by the sign which he wrought in him" (with which cp. 
Savile, 721. 33 ml rh itj 6aiii>airr6r, a^roi ot iroXr/UM clu^jvyov aMv 

, Google 


wartmr 6piyTtif and 731. lO Ata W fiq ytyoftv ir dapivc^/ fioTf fi^ 
)'{ciMU AXdvi &X(h oiri AuryqiraaAu, liXX' airrit ofu^tntrrat ir SiiDfO^fitM* 
i tti rovrv airiwi)> 

Thus Ephrem overlaps the Greek Chrysostom in many points 
and even the Armenian Chrysostom in a few. The comparative 
rareness with which the latter occurs is of course due to the fact 
that the catenist did not wish to repeat himself; so was careful 
only to select passages from his two sources in which they 
differed and supplemented one another. The Ephrem, as might 
be expected, is more openly and avowedly based on the Western 
text than the Chrysostom, though that text may be read every- 
where between the lines of the latter. 

Acts ix. 7 " But the men who were wayfaring with him stood 
speechless, hearing the voice only, but seeing nothing." So the 
Armenian Vulgate cited in the Catena. Tischendorf reads : duo^- 
orm iiif T^ ^•n^f) fi^fa Si Otmpowrtt- To which Blass adds the 
Western gloss : fu0' at AaXn. The catenist implies this gloss : 

"Chrvs. — Those who were with him heard Paul's voice, when 
he said 'Who art thou. Lord?' But they saw no one, and did 
not know ia whom he gave an answer (= iit6' of (XoXti)- ^'^'^ he 
only made them hearers of the lesser things. For if they had 
heard that voice, perhaps they would not have been wanting in 
£iith ; but they wondered at Paul's giving an answer." (So in 
Savile, 721. 10-13 o^'m ii tOtipovf npir tr arrtxpiraTo k. t. X.) 

Compare also the Sahidic: "Audiebant quidem vocem, sed 
non intelligebant ; non videbant enim quemquam," 

iz. 40 TaffiSi ara<mi8t [in nomine domini nostri lesu Christi]. 
The Western gloss is added in the Catena, though it may be due 
to the influence of the Armenian Vulgate, which also has it The 
Greek text of Chrysostom (Savile, 732. 42 and 734. i) does not 
add it. 

ix. 40 rj A( frM^r [irapaj^pi] rain i^akiunn col Itmiaa rot TUrpot 
imnafum. The Ethiopic text, however, adds the irapaxp^fui before 
IftoMTo. So it is in Chrysostom's Greek (Savile, 734. 6) : (ito tiiit 
tiaim XJMTpon QMniAm. 

X. 33 rip •& irarrtt ffHis irinnor roC dm jtaptfriitji. Here the 
Western text has vm instead of rov Aov. Chrysostom must have 
known of this Western reading, for his comment is directed 
against it : atx tJwa /rwiruw dffipAwou, aXXA Btoi, StiKirit on ovnt Su 
wpocixnM roif TiriJ 6tai doSkoit (Savtle, 744. 23). So in the Catena. 

Acts xi. 2. Tischendorf notes thus: "D versum sic habet: o 
Ittr omr wwrpot tia icoMV jymm/ ^dofvai (** — an) voptt)0ti*m «c upoao- 

.y Google 


Xvfu' mil npoaipitiiti<ras tovc oM^ovt coi twuinipifat avrovt wokvr X070* 
iroiov/KVOf &ct Tur X"?"" Bt^ovKa* Ovrout* or (d. guio) cat iaiT7)»rffft* 
avTDit KOI atr^yyf iX(t> ourott njr ;(a|>u tov ^ov * oi d( (■ irrptrofi^ adcX^oi 

diHfHniia'a irpoc ovrov." The Greek text of Chrysostom (Savile, pp. 
749, 750), after its usual confused manner, returns again and 
again to this verse, and shews some traces %i the Bezan readii^ ; 
*• 8* 749' 3 ^'o "' ^p^a^'^^oTal. ot Xiymin iti rl Kar^yy^tXac, oXXi tli 
Ti <nni^ay*t, \. e. "Look at their objection. They do not say 
'Why did you preach to them ?'," etc. This refers to the words 
of the gloss if (lege vr) • • ■ ia\ dirqyrtiXcr airm t^c X^P'" ^"^ 
BtoZ. The latter words are implied by Chrys. just below (749. 

8): aXX otti irravBa rovra iynoKmian' littaia ydp in Bttat x^P"^* 

ffy. 13A^ Sii n', ipaah, vvriipaytt. It would appear that at least the 
clause of the gloss beginning lit mI stood in some text the com- 
mentary on which Chrysostom made his own. The Armenian 
echoes the gloss in the same way. 

XL 17 <I otr T^v rmgv iitptir IdoMtr a^rotr i 6tit aw lu) fnur, trurrriaow 
rVi rd» Kvptoc 'li]<raC* Xpurrir. TlSch. nOteS at ■* cal i^fur thUS : 
"Did Ilbere irapaaxity TO ayio* irxv^ia <» au qfuv t* a/^xfi ^^ 

om. wurrtuiraai¥ usque iv Xr." Perhaps the Armenian commentary 
involves such a text, for it runs thus (p. 211) : "Therefore from 
the beginning he familiarises their minds in his discourse and 
then says: 'Who also received the holy Spirit like ourselves.' 
And prior to this (he said): 'When I began to speak, the holy 
Spirit came upon them.' And neither in this passage nor in that 
axe the words superfluous: 'as upon its in the beginning' But 
be also again recalls the word of the Lord which he uttered : 
'John baptised in water, but ye shall be baptised in the holy 
Spirit,'" etc The Greek commentary on vs. 17 (Savile, 75a 20 
foil.) gives no sign of such a reading. 

Acts xii. 7 n-ani^ar]. D has vO£os, which is involved in the 
Armenian Vulgate, and accordingly in the Catena ; but the latter 
on p. 224 implies it independently, as it seems, of the Armenian 

Acts xii. 10. For ({(XAfirtr the version has dvcXAimi, which 
also stands in Savile's margin, p. 762. 35. Of the seven steps 
which, according to the Bezan Codex, they descended, neither 
form of the commentary says anything ; but the Armenian has 
OD verse 10, on the words fXAi* ■. r. X., some topographical 
remarks absent from the Greek text : " 'They came,' he says, 'as 
far as the iron gate, which led into the city, which also of itself 

^d by Google 


opened to them.' That it was in Jerusalem that Peter was raken 
and was thrown (into prison) therein, is clear from what is related 
a little below of Herod going down from Judaea to Caesareia. 
But what is this that he saith: 'They came to a gate of iroD, 
which led into the city,' The Mounl Sion in the middle of 
Jerusalem was shut in by a strong wall {or rampart), which also 
was called the central citadel, as we have it in Maccabees, in 
which was the palace and the dwellings of the royal cohort 
(? =^anXiir4i mrci'pqr). Inside there was also the prison, whence 
he removed Peter and led him as far as the door which led into 
the outer city in the same Jerusalem, which (door) also of itself 
opened, he says. And lo, the self-opening of the iron doors is a 
second miracle, not inferior to that which preceded. 

'And having entered it they passed along a single alley and 
suddenly,' " etc The above comment is ascribed by the Catena 
10 Chrysostom, whose Greek text, however, affords no trace of it. 

These topographical details confirm the Bezan addition which 
says that firom the iron gate they went down seven steps. If they 
were going down from Mount Sion, they would necessarily have 
done so. 

In Acts xii. so we read in the non- Western text : fr Sj Oviniiaxm 

Tvpiaa nol Iiimrioit ' 6ito6vftaSoii Si ira^irav irpit avrif uil irtKaamtt BXdoTOi' 
Toe iwl roi KotrwiHW toC fiairiXiait (tovito ilprjrTjr, . , . VS. 21 rnjcr^ Si 
•Ifipt i 'HpMiit . ■ . H^nfyipu wpit airow, VS. 22 6 Si S^/ias ttriiftiini ' 
tfMv ^m^ K. T. X. This text implies in vs. 30 that both Tyrians 
and Kdonians joined together in approaching Herod. The 
Western text D makes this explicit by reading after Siiutiois as 
li^OVS : U Si iftoSviiaSiy (f a/i^OTt/wr Twr irAtuf wap^vav iirl rir 
SaaAia. Just below D reads aWoO instead of tou paiiAtus. Lasdy, 
at the beginning of vs. 22, before 6 Si 37/10* D adds KoroXXayirrtir Si 
ovTof nw Tvplou. This last addition implies that the Tyrians, as 
opposed to the Sidonians, had made their peace with Herod. 

It is curious that the Armenian Chrysostom (p. 332 of the 
Catena), in an excerpt for which we look in vain in the Greek 
text, also implies this, but not perhaps in quite the same way. It 
runs as follows. I italicise citations from the Armenian Vulgate : 
"Chkys. — 'j^nd Herod was in dudgeon Tviih the Tyrians and 
mih the Sidonians.' Why does he mention this conflict here, or 
what s^eement has it with the context ? It is indeed very perti- 
nent; since he has already in part revealed his wickedness, he 
mshcs to indicate also his arrogance as well as God's judgement 

.y Google 


on him. And as be declares the truth in every detail, be indi- 
cates that he was angry with the Sidonians. 'And Ikty wiik ne 
accord came to htm,' It appears to me that be had brought tben 
also to book and bad led them after bim. For being choleric 
and fond of a disturbance, be was angry with them, and wished 
to propitiate the Jews. ' But the men of Zour (L e. Tyre) hava^ 
made overtures to Blastus his chamberlain were seeking peace.' 
See how like a man of grovelling soul be was easily excited to 
wratb, and being illiberal and base, could b« conciliated by a 
single chamberlain, being a slave on all occasions. For because 
of the risk of famine which impended, of which he reminded ui 
before, they petitioned that their country might be fed from the 
royal (domains)." 

The above clearly implies the Western gloss in vs. 22, as alto 
the Western reading sItoC for nv paoMmt in vs. 20. It is abo 
curious that the form Zour is used for Tyre in the above. 
But a Syriac original need not be inferred. In Savile, p. 767. 4, 
the above commentary is represented by the following Greek: 
Efm itmSI) lirropiat tt/uW* fic/ir^vAu Xonrir, 8ii rnvro aai rd Mfuna 
n'AfO'iv, Tim itix^B "oma iiraikriBtiBni. Mil irtiimrTtt BXavrov, ^ifcn, rir M 
Tov itoiruvoc rou fiairMioc ^Tovrro (ipq»i)>'. toOto imm/aa/, (irltl^ Xi/iit fr 
. . . and 7^7* ^^ ^P" ^ aiTif koI uiri mS BXdorov ifawtM/uwar, uu Sn 
i^ ToXalnitpar SiTa tixSkiet ipyiC6faioir, nil roXi* ■nriiXXarrdfitvDv mi 
iratTttxev SoCXor t&p A^futc xol o£9(i> JXtiStpov ?;|;mTa. Here KaraXXarrd- 
fMroir recalls the Western gloss KaTaX.Xayi»Tet 6i atirov in vs. 33 in an 
unmistakeable way ; and the identity of phrase proves that Cbry- 
sostom's commentary is based on a Greek commentary which 
used a Greek Western text. It precludes our supposing that he 
used a Syriac commentary based on a Syriac Western text. For 
in the latter case the chances are against his having pitched on 
that very equivalent of reconciliahu which we find in D. The 
same gloss is implied in the Greek comment (Savile, 767. 14) : 
Dpn Has KtHiftofor & ai^pmrit (Wt. itiXXitf aCroir iill6rtn r^f 
iuptir ittiiaifipriiny. Thts is reproduced in the Armenian. 
Unless the text had stated that be was reconciled, thb comment 
would hardly have been added. 

Acts xii. 23 kb) yniiuiHK crK»Xi)K^p«nic i(4^(n. Here D reads 
ml KOToffitr dro to£ P^ixarot yn. irxuX. In (mf kbI dEtoc jfilfni^lr. The 
Western gloss emphasises the circumsunce that he did not die at 
once, but lingered on alive, yet the prey of the worms. The 
Greek text of Cbrys. (Savile, 767. S) cites the text in its usual 

.y Google 


Ibnn and adds Tovro ical 'Ibotsm Xiyn ttn itaKpi ntpiititat vAaif. The 
Catena uoder Cbrysostom (p. 233) says: "Him as the greater 
criminal God tortured with incurable disease. Thus Josephus 
says that for five days he fell into a sore disease in the sight of 
the multitude ... in that very moment on the heel of his impious 
utterance the tyrant (was) foully overrun with worms and in 
pleous torture dissolved his life, but he was not seen." The drift 
of the Armenian seems to be to controvert Josephus' statement 
tlut Herod suffered in public. I am not sure, however, that 
Josephus is not quoted to illustrate the gloss in (Ar. 

Acts xiii. 28 Ko) lojitfUay atriar $orirmi tS/pirrtt ^Ttiaavra IlftXaroi' 
amptO^rai avriy. Instead of ^t^trovro . . . aiiT6r, D reads Kpiiiams 
titer wapiimKon UtAarw ini (If mcuptau and d iudlcantes autem eum 
tradiderunt Pilato ut interficeretur. The Greek Chrysostom 
(Savile, 775. 38) seems to imply the gloss, though, as usual, it 
also quotes and comments on the other reading, for it runs thus: 

niXmu' df iiiao* iftipti, Sfia jiiw un SqXov ra tcaSot yirrfriu oiri roC Kpaif- 
fioo' S/ut ii Ira fKtaoi luiCirat KaT^yapMTai, avdpl irapatAiirtt liXXo- 
^vXf> ui ovK thrtp, irirvxot, oXX' grifaavTO. The Catena (p. 340) 
czhibits the same form of comment. It looks as if Chrysostom 
was adapting to a non-Western text a Greek commentary based 
on a Greek Western text. 

Acts X 111. ^^\v$*tai}t ti rtit mmywy^t ijvoXovAjtrai' iroXXo) tw '\0viat1t9 
ul (w mffofidrttr irpixngXiitw)' ry IlauXfi ical r^ BnpMi^, [^a^iovmt patrri- 
v^qni,] otTiMf wpoa^iAoownr atma hrtiOor avroue TtpoTfiirtiV T5 X^P*" ™' 

6ui. The Western gloss found in Codex 137 and Syr' c* is 
bracketed in the above. In the Greek text of Chrysostom (Xiyot 
X', Savile, 779. 43 foil.) we read as follows : *hn Sn Stfiiirir iimprtiy 
An roOroo vfur narayyAXtnit * ri il irAr, ottK (&ijX«<r<. /xrri ravra Xmiriv 
turit (ovrav /unuuntmi iipimu. 6pft r^v npoOviuan Sarf/ timAoiBoi/ii 
•*T«it, 0^1. 8id Ti avToir ov« i$aicTt9t» tiSittt; o6k ijr 
ntpit' wMtu titi tart jStftu'wc imnifnii. 43 Avfln'ir^ ii r^t wtiayir)^ 
(. T. X. (the not Western text being cited). In the above the 
Western gloss ifuOrm is clearly implied. The Armenian equally 
involves it. The phrase ^okoiSovr a^«c, ^trf also recalls the 
Syriac reading ntroTc instead of ry n. ■□) rf B. 

Acts xiil. 50 ol it 'lovtotbt ^aptrrptnittir rir irffftipritiat yvnuKiu . . • Kol 
•*Vy"p>' Buryfiov rrl rit notrXoi' col Bapvafior «al i^ffakep adroit airi rS» 
ifuf afirmr. Here, instead of SiBy/ior, DE read B\v^ (D adds 
vyO^') lol 8(«7fMt*. The Catena comments thus on the verse, 
which it cites in the terms of the Arm. Vulgate : " Behold what 

.y Google 


success the opponents of the preaching achieved and vbat 
excesses of wickedness — of which by themselves they were 
incapable — they managed to persuade the chief men and the 
devout women and the great men of the dty to commit And 
having roused them to battle, they exercised oppression (= Aifv) 
against Paul and Barnabas, and persecuted them to beyond thdi 
borders." Perhaps the above echoes the reading tfU^ir. In the 
Greek Cfarysostom we merely read (Savile, 780, 43) ipm let* 
fvuvai' ol (MUTlov/Mi'oi rip utipvyi/an,' dt iarpi iaxtfuxrvrtir ai/rit fyoyo*/ 

Acts XIV. 9 oCrof Ijtovotr tdv IlavXou XaXovrroi It inwiaat air^ mt 
IBair iri txtt nlmai tov ifii3^iiau Here D adds tnrapKtir ir ipi&f 3&tt 
XoXouvror, and E instead of tc ortK. abr^ reads irpit tv artv. i neSkes. 

The Armenian Catena ascribes to Chrysostom this comment (p. 
250): "Behold bis wsdom. He listened, he says, to the words 
of Paul, for his lameness did not interfere with the diligence of 
his listening. Upon whom having looked fixedly, Paul recog- 
nised his faith to be worthy of salvation, because he willingly 
received the word with attention." I infer that the text owi- 
mented on read npit fir artf. i li., with E, and probably contained 
the gloss of D as well. In the Greek text of Chrysostom there 
is no similar comment. 

Acts XV. 1 2 lirvyKaTaTiStiiifai' Ac Titi' nptaffvripar rnc imi rou naV/wv 
ilpiHxifott'] iaiyijirtv irav ri trX^ot, Here the Western gloss of D 
Syr' c. is bracketed. The Catena (p. 265), under the title Chry- 
sostom, has the following: "But do thou mark, that he did not 
base his teaching with them upon the prophets, but upon actual 
facts, of which they themselves were witnesses. Wherefore they 
were instantly persuaded, ceasing the discussion. For the elders 
were satisfied with the words of Simeon, and without dispute the 
dispute was broken off by means of submission to the Spirit. 
TAe vkole muititude, he says, was silent, and they listened to 
Barnabas and Paul," etc. Here the gloss is very apparent. In 
the Greek text of Chrysostom, however, we look for it in vain. 
There we find only (he first sentences of the Armenian, as follows 

(Savile, 793. 34) : Spa nit tic tfta&tpbn JEOrAqfoi. Mi* ivi vpv^ipmf 
aliTi»t didXiytrai, oXX' diri ruv irap6rTtni vpayiiaraf, £r a£ral pdprvp*t firar. 
(i(i(r«c Kol aimA Xotirdi' itrifiaprvpovat >ai T&r XSyoii lir)(upiTtpor aiuoMrt 
Tins lJ3q ytyaftiroit. Kal Spa ip t^ JtrXipii^ inrfj(tipfi ttpi/rmr ffr^m* 
ytrioBal mI ror* Xiyii. 

Acts XV. 26 arSpimmt icapoAtivKivi rlit ^x^* avrv* iiwtp rai MpafM 
rov Kvpimr qfuv 'lijtrov XpioraC. Here the Western text adds ttt «arra 

.y Google 


KifjofffuSv after XfMirrov. The Armenian Catena comments thus: 
"And if they are loved, then they cannol contemn them. And 
then by their encomium they demonstrate the sohciiude of those 
with Paul for the name of the Lord, wherein they are testified to 
be &ithful in all things {ly iron-f or Wc n-apra)." The corresponding 
passage in the Greek Chrysostom (Savile, 797. 44 — 798, 8) omits 
the words italicised, which seem an echo of the Western gloss. 

XV. 34. D and some other sources, including the Armenian 
Vulgate, add ftofc ii t4 ZA? imtuXntu airov. The Catena, under 
the title Chrysostom, after citing verse 33, proceeds thus: "And 
there was no more disturbance thenceforth. 'And it seemed good 
to Silas lo remain there'" He means Silvanus, who accompanied 
Paul. In the Greek (Savile, 798. 3t) we read: irH^cmmc di xpil>«r< 

ix^iA^av fur' tlp^njt' oiit tn cmfirtt, oix in anoarpolj)^. But of the 

addition there is no hint, yet it certainly stood in the text used by 
the translator. 

Actsxv.41, The Catena has the following; "He went about 
unto the regions of Syria and Cilicia, confirmed the churches." 
Behold untff whom they had the letter from the apostles, that th^ 
should give it unto them, to these he first went about. For he 
did not esteem it the part of wisdom to neglect the fruitless 
passage through them. And this is usual with us also. For we 
first reprove the first people, that they may not hamper the rest. 
. . . Thou seest that he was not afraid first of all to return to 
Antioch. And now he had nothing to fear in going by himself 
alone ; but he returned for a visit, such as physicians pay to their 
sick. And to the importance of visiting them he had before 
pointed, when he said to Barnabas: 'Let us return to those to 
whom we preached the word, to see how they do.' For naturally 
he did not now know and was going to see. But let us also 
understand this, how that they travelled on foot over land, going 
round to all, that so they might advantage many. But when they 
needed to make great haste, they went in a ship. But not so on 
this occasion." In the above we recognise two Western glosses. 

For after Acts XV. 41 Si^pj^fro B< riff Zcpfai' «al KiXiitiar (triOTirpi'^uv T<lf 
•uXijviaT, D adds these words : napabihtAt rat irrokar Tur irpto&vripvf , 
but the Syr*"* has "et tradebant iis custodire praecepta aposto- 
lorum et seniorum." And in D Syr'"* verse i of ch. xvi adds 
luXMr N r& 7Aij niura before Koriiynfatf tit Aipfiifp. In the Greek 
Chrysostom (Savile, 803. 3-12) we have a passage which corres- 
ponds to the words of the Catena quoted, but the italicised words 

.y Google 


■re absent, along with everything else that could suggest these 

Acts XVt. 6 Ot^XAir Aj r^r *puyia» cal roXorue^r Jtapov, KtAv6irm M 
row ijiov wMUfioTM [/iqAol] XoXTcrai r4» X((j™ »V rg 'Aalf. Here D 
adds the word bracketed. The Catena first cites the next verse 7 
and then gives the following omiment : " He saith then that tbej 
were let, that they should speak to no one (= fur^m) the word of 
God in the region of Am. But why they were let, he adds not 
. . . Nay, he also teaches us that they sdll thought and did 
many things humanly (iripamirmt)." The latter part of the above 
comment is in Savile, 802. 38, but not the reading fufiai. 

Acts XVL 37 tnpawm wub Awwnf wamucpfTovc. D adds iramnvt 
berore dtifmwrm. The Catena (p. 303) has: "But see, my friend 
(i ^*), the wisdom of his words, for his indictment was twofdd 
and threefold. For we are Romans, he says, and fiiultless with> 
out condemnatkw, aod have been scourged in public" This 
seems to imply irmmm. No charge bad been made against them, 
nor bad they been condemned. No cwrespcniding passage 
occurs in the Greek Chrrsostom. 

Acts X\ii. 14 *M^ U T«n iw nmXw ({onvrnXv o> oftiX^ trspcwoAii 
rM •'n T^ 4bX««*>. inparir nSn XOm «a* i rtfMtot ial. I5 ol 

Xmp' nwXi'4^ y)ifi «t aJTWc toipi^m n* X i ji»J. nal Xafiim^s triaijp 
(Western text in^rA^) ■■,-w rw SA« » T^ Ti yti tf w , »• M njivra 

;XiWw *{vt •n'nits i^V'^ '<> the above tlte Western addition is 
br*v"lret«<l. The cvwiniew of Ephrem stands in a peculiar reh- 
tii'<n. A* IVm". Rettdcl Harris has seen, to that of Chrysostom. 
\Vh<-ift.'«e 1 oanslaw it fira, italidsii^, as nsoal, the words which 
tvfei- to ihf $:>*■<!». 

" KrHRV"* — He CJtnie iheo as iu- as the shcoe recedii^ {'^x*- 
fmnX X^wX /*/ hfl-\ Sp:''-it pf-niCBifJ him from premelutig. For 
liN*! Iw^ i>K-v s>ii'vii,i skv him. And ifaoM who conducted Paul, 
Uvl him nil tAi fl« .^tbcn$L. And havii^ recedved from Paul a 
,NMiim«ri-1 h-i Silw *rk^ Tim.ilheo&, thai they should instandy 
.^^■l1^ N\ hitvi )n Aihfns, And rberwcnJ to him as when they 

I'll. *4.4N'k snd .\i-iTiofiiati loniis 01' the cmnioeittaiy of Chry- 
ih>vt..„>, ,>n (fiR I'utssaef irr.piy ibe same Becan gloES. Thus 
,N-,v ,1,-. >i,N 4'' «v tiRVc US a ^f>mmpn! on \^ 14 l3»e fcjlowii^ in 

v». v.VV* «,r, , . ,.*, ...,..,,-«, and Jr>id.Si7, 3O e(« y 

^d by Google 


f fuiiotia tiiat inuuia ra* Xetamih &o ml yinoTat. ikki 
r^ inojiitptir xal iwurtu ravnt iwatavr. ifarriartAiui a£nfr, ifi^nr, b( 
(■1 ^r AiXomrot. n' t^ort; Aarr f^ yvtiaOm Qurmt (firaXor t^ji Kord- 
Xfi^, i£mn (yp. ovnt) yip toff iavtaitt piya n lwpa(ar ir, ml fKr' tttirou 
nUi (yp. Ar) Ijnmir nol cnrafidiKrav. nai iua^*, tptjair, i^praam 

i&aiiiwTa. Here, as Pro£ R. Harris points out, the statement that 
Paul was recoiling yet pressing on and acting in many things 
Irom human motives hints that his human intention (7 of evan- 
gelising Thessaly) was frustrated by the warning of the Spirit 
explicitly described in the gloss. Furthermore, the introduction 
of the words i^prmai ip. by tfuiaui looks as if these words were 
being cited from the text. But this is very doubtful. 

But the variant (i) is further attested. For in Savile (817. a 
Ml.) vs. 14 as far as Sakmrnaw is again cited with the following 

comment: drraUSa Xoiwir rill noSXtw iTfftirovcrt pipm' irtfA yip airreS 
iMoUuaar, p^ n wafig, ri Kc^oXaioi' atrif aiirit Ar. ovrac at natraxmi ^ 
Xipt '*^pyti' dXX (in airoit ml a^ffpmwiya froitiy, iuivurrai^a atrroit 
ml iuiwriCauffa sal (If pjptprar ip^aXXmuaa. 

In the Armenian the traces of the gloss are still clearer, for not 
only do all the above passages occur, but after the passage from 
Savile, 816. 4, 5, the catenist (p. 309) proceeds thus: "And on 
this occasion he fled providentially (= nar' olKoropiaf') and not 
because be was afiraid. For had it not been providentially, then 
would he Aave ceased to preach, and would have been no further 
incensed. But he by so acting providentially effected two results 
—namely, that their wrath was quenched, and that the preaching 
increased all the more." The Greek original of this occurs out 
of its light place in Savile, 816. 43, 44 <rv d< tm 6ia, Sn olmMfUJiM 
t^vyor, m tnXimmt' i yip if iitaiaarra Kijpirratrtt, Koi mixi paXXov 
fpi^vrar. oXX' /k toutov Sva iyiftro' ml iutpttr 6 Bvpit iafiitruro, ml 

Some minor Western glosses appear in the Greek comments 
on the same chapter, e. g. Acts 17. 5 the non-Western text is 
i^iteamt ii ol lovtatot ml jrpovXaffoptnH tm> ayopmuf nrdr. But D 
reads ol ii ovftAinm 'teu9ai« avarpJ^mt rur ay. r. In Savile, 816. 
31 weread v/MHrXa^fUMt d( nnr ol antiSovrTtt 'lotrSoiet. 

Acts xviii. 2, After iiti Hit 'Pipifi the Codex D adds dI ■« nor^- 
«?ffo» tit T^r 'Axaiar. The catenist (p. 324) comments thus: "He 
then b«ng a native of Pontus, did not concern himself to go to 
Jerusalem, nor near to it, but chose to domicile himself far away." 
This reads like a comment on the Western gloss. The corres- 
ponding Greek text (Savile, 837. 39) is less explicit. 



Acts xviii. 8 voXXoi iw KepoSimr amomt iaUnvm [U mi Mpam 
rmi Kv IV x"] "^ (^om'fiwn. Here tbe gloss bracketed b in Codex 
137 and Syr*"«. The catenist (p. 327) has: "And many of the 
Corinthians heard, believed m t/u Lord and were baptised." 
Tbe corresponding Greek text of Chrysostom (Savile, 83S. 14) 
omits the words italicised, nor are they in the Aimcnian Vulgate, 
the words of which are here given in roman type. 

Acts xviii. 12 axmivn^aa* 6fuifiviia6if ti 'IovAcum rf DavXf aot ^jnyv 
oMr (sl ri fi^/ia, XiymTn . . . But D reads instead of t^ DauXf nt 
tbe gloss owXaX^oviTcr utO' Savrmr M t^ DoAot jtai hnfiirrrt rit xaft. 
Also Syr* c* adds after ourA» the words ad procmuulem. And D 
adds KOTofiiAntt ml before Xiyorm. The Catena (p. 328) has by 
way of comment on verses 13 and 13 the following: "The Jews 
throughout opposing the truth, after one year and six months 
unanimously rose against him (or attacked him). And since 
they could not employ a just law, they employed violence ; and 
they falsely accused before the Hegemon (i. e. Proconsul) him 
who day by day taught them from the law, saying that be 
teaches the sons of men to worship God against the law," This 
is not in Chrysostom's Greek text. I think that the words "ance 
they could not employ a just law" answer to wiKtA.ifaatva luf 
iavT&r M Tin n. It is what they said to one another. The words 
"they employed violence" answer to itriSirrtt ris jytifMc. "Falsely 
accused " answers to ■anI^Durm. And lastly the words "before 
the Hegemon " is a rendering of tbe Syriac ad proconsuUm. It 
may also he observed that the phrase "sons of men" seems to 
betoken a Syriac original to the commentary. 

xviii. 17 (ViXndii/unu At irarrtt [ol *eXXi)iic] itaaSinft. The bracketed 
Western gloss figures in the Armenian Vulgate and in the vene 
as cited in the Greek Chrysostom, 827. a8. The catenist (p. 329) 
remarks : " Here by Greeks he means those Jews, who talked the 
Greek tongue." But another interpretation immediately follows 
from Ephrem : 

"Ephrem. — The believing Greeks struck Sosthenes, the head 
of the synagogue." 

Acts xviii. 27 /SocXo^Vau At attnv Si(Xtf(ir dc t^v 'Axiubv, jcpmpr^- 
fitfoi ol dSfX^ei lypir^v rait fiaAfraif dn-odt'gao'&t avT6v. The Bezan 
text and Syr*"" have i* ii -r^ 'Eil>iiHf (OiSq^KiMTtr nut KopifiiBt ai 
ixoiiramr aurav irapcniXour iuXBtir iriv airoit lit rifir narpiia avrar' 
irufKaTariiiiarTor 6i avrou ol E^((ri« lypir^ar Toit Jr KapirStf fiaArTflii 
Sjttn dirod»f(»tT<u ri» nutpa ' ftt iiriSi)iil)<ias tit rffy Aj^aiav noXv (ruw^XXiro 

, Google 


it rat* iuA^iatt. Now, Under the title of Chrysostom the Catena 
(not the Greek text) comments thus: "When he wished to go 
into Achaia, which is in Hellas the fatherland {or native land) of 
the Corinthians, the brethren, being desirous, wrote to the dis- 
dples to receive him ; who, when he arrived there, was of great 
service to the faithful, for he stoutly resisted the Jews in public, 
proving by the scriptures that Jesus is the Christ. So then the 
party of Aquila accurately told the matter to Paul. But they also 
urged him to go to Achaia, which be himself desired to do." 
The Western gloss is clearly behind the words italidsed. Yet 
the reference to it is embedded in the non-Western text in a way 
that is unaccountable, unless we suppose that in Cbrysostom's 
commentary is used up another older one which was lirased on a 
Western text. 

XVII. 38 rou y&p koI ytrm tofUt. , 

Tovro 'ApoTor (iircv 6 itmtt^c. 

Such is Cbrysostom's comment in the Greek (Savile, 820. 40). 
But the Catena has: "This indeed was said by the poets Them- 
gianos (= Timagenes) and Aratus." Of a poet Timagenes or 
Themgianos we do not indeed read elsewhere, but the name 
cannot have been added by the Armenian translator. This is 
one of the many passages whence we learn that his text of 
Chrysostom was more complete than that which we have in 

Acts xix. 5 AtoiioairTtt a ifiairrivOttvav th tA &a/ia roS Kupt'ov 'lijffov 
[(If Sif>tiTii> iiutfinMr}. 6 Hal iirtBivrat avroir rov DatiXou x^'P"^ C^ X^'P") 
^6t (D has rtiBiitt iirintmr) ri mnita ro Syiov in' adroit, AdXoi'i' re 
yXmraait [Syr* "* adds aiiis et sentiebani in seipsis quod ei irtter- 
prelabaniur illas hi ^si'\ xal inpo^roar. The catenist has the 
following : " But why did they stand in need of the water (1. e. of 
baptism) a second time? They necessarily did. For he deliv- 
ered unto them the complete mystery, and took away the mere 
copy. For that of John was empty of such manifold gifts, since 
it was only water and repentance. Wherefore it was incomplete, 
and was not Spirit and remission of sins. And thereby and 
tHsUaUfy from the new baptism they prophesy . . . and when 
Paul laid his hand upon them, they received the holy Spirit, 
spake with tongues and interpreted of themselves (or in them- 
selves) . . . with tongues and prophecy they received the Spirit." 
The correspondii^ Greek is in Savile, 833. 27-36, where, how- 

.y Google 

ws: %.^-r twT a ae r:aais mrvive, viz. «ii A^ot i>iyni» in L 

anc » « — a - 7.- ■- - *> mmuhw «Mw ifin'n- For ib« ret 
ibt Srecc {:-^■a' vt,i4« eoc me sh^nkr jw^ raain ed in ihe 
A- m^iuT- KucL wh.jI'* ^pTtoref tfac gloK ia ierpre ia h m m i tir. vhich 
»■ ^-lau wt. n.r, m T na: uEt in ii»e mBrgin of the old Syiiac 
wcTsivt. Tn» ii-:n^E ttw uwrt am^ once a W^ern text « ibe 
A=» macT cmmicrK icar im Bczan. becaiae il cantaiDed glt«se 
■riin:£ an ^ n.w «r7«4C n 3ie marpm of the Syriac This ii/ore 
cjaininne "Ressrx k=: iiD3=nis Ae Annenjap ten of Chrysos- 
v.^tt. MUZ p-.ius:t -I ^nt ics ::Tm:justt GrtA lert as vdL 
A^rs x-jL 1 31 1^ Iz ate '^'esrsm g'ins ibc sons of Scms sajr 

r: die aemilE m^-^^uw m •> Imv fe limJkm q^um iffUlw 

C'.iTpKrT wnt ;=s UK »-n^:if pDC r^ ibe ratmist (p. 339) inio ibe 
m-juutt -if zar vKoztrrz:.^ 'rm ex.irtasis ,*i» mpHpt^mv 'Ui4«.») 
ir carr^rtsritiE nt i-&. ; ^ ■ We Mcjan ihee atjesta whom P»p1 
;>rtaciiw. t^r-Kr-. /'i^k c-ik." Tac ii:m-Westeni text in vs. 13 
ti ::l;.j r^s i^m.;* i.uM -« :tn~> » HoTLh a^^-rra. Lower don 
i£ !■* s»=i« p*L.-at:T^: i uw ca:grjs: pr^rs tbr same words again, 
iiut ^ a i\'r= « r^ici »:>:m:=it:es si^ iDcre dosdy lo the Btiaji : 

_'«i-ai Chr.s:. cntn 'rrm^ t^ic'" Ti»e dcdL iorm of Chrysosiotn 
coEiiias ao rr*^ o: lie ^li**. 

Acts IX. 25 «« vw^jB.ra> w rM* w*m ni thimct (pyarac, ««"" 

^rj;«« 'n*T(x*«Fc.j. n.rT»Hlt «. r. I- The caienist (p. 347) has: 
"But liey say E>:h!=i:. -Jt 'X^J h«- And behold how he first 
makft tktm ill ctmtnd^s, a=d then sets bcibre their minds the 
v.fKfui (A want ir.d sets ;he wh^Ie ctr in an uproar," The Greek 
I'Ain (Sasxe, 843. 37-40 equally implies the gloss mnrnxnan^ 
Th'^^h Dem«r:u3 was rich, and though it was therefore a maitH 
of indifference to him, whereas lo them who were poor people 
i;v:n(; from hand 10 mouth, lor whom Christianity meant loss of 
bread and meat, yet they said nothing, but only he. imrufovt ii 

St^at airTOvi rigt rij^nit, tmruroit Xa/i^oMi itoi tm fiofii'ffav (SaVlle, 843- 

3'j). The commentator clearly wished to draw our attention to 
the rhetorical skill shewn by the capitalist in beginning his speech 
with the expression mm^Hirat, in calling them his ' fellow- work- 
men' when they were poor and he himself rich. This aim of the 
cuinmenlator is better brought out in the Armenian than in the 
Greek. And incidentally I may remark that the occurrence of 
■uch a tfloss in the Bezan text attests its superior age and genu- 

.y Google 


s to the noD- Western text. What aecond-century interpo- 
lator — to take ProC Ramsay's theory — would have dreamed of 
adding so oatural a phrase to the text Such an interpolator was 
more of a Luke than was Luke hiinsel£ 

Acts xtx. 39. Chrysostom's comment (the same both in the 
Greek and in the Catena) is historically interesting : imiutr inXij- 

mof i^Tirl, Bufrt rptit tncXi^tot iylrorro rari mIfh* jia^ tcanTor fi^m. 

Acts XX. I sal [iraXXd] irapaKiAiiiac. Chrysostom in Greek and 
Armenian alike has this gloss (Savile, 848. 34 ; Catena, p. 354) : 
*Ei() iroXX^f wapaA^axtt ani r^ mpaxqc ^mu^r. The gloSS is again 
implied in Savile, 850. 17. 

Acts xzi. 83 iripl a TM ir«nvT(V(rfr»F i$r&w [ovAtr l^ovvi Xryrir np6t 
(T*]* if^" LT^J tirtortiXiifu* Kpurmrrtt [fuiiiy Toiovrai' r^ptiw axrrovt (i fiqj 
0irXdirir«iTAu aiiToitK.T.X. The Catena has: "And bow saith he, 
that the Gentiles will learn what I do, and by this action of mine I 
shall harm them ? No, he says ; for since we too who are doctors 
of the Jews wrote unto them not to trouble themsehies as to aught 
of the law, save only in a few partictdars, since then tkey do not 
mind even m regard to thee at all abotU this. Wherefore he adds 
and says. But as touching the faithful Gentiles we sent as we 
judged good, that they should not keep any such thing, but only 
be on tbeir guard," etc. The gloss ahSi* ix. A. n-p. « is not hinted 
at in the corresponding Greek text (Savile, 865. i-to) ; hut both 
the Greek Chrysostom and the Armenian Vulgate have the other 

Acts xxiii. 24 in iniStfiaaams tin ElauXo* Siarsoaai npAi trgXiKo riv 
Iff^ltira ' [^^o/3q^ yhp iiipnm ApvamoTK aifriv ol lovSaioi orcomtlvtMn taX 
abrit iirmfi fycXq^ txn wt ipyoptoy <IXi)^c.] This glOSS iS in I57. 
vg^ Syr' c*, but not in D. The Catena has this comment: 
"Mark how Paul is found guiltless by the judgement of the aliens, 
as was Christ before Pilate. Mark also their wickedness annulled 
and frustrated. They gave him over, in order to condemn and 
slay him. But the contrary resulted, for his life was saved and 
he himself found guiltless. Moreover, had such precautions not 
been observed (cp. i^^ifii\) about him, he would have been seized 
(cp. ^aaams) ; and if he had not been so cautious (cp. i<fuSr)6ij), 
he would have been destroyed iy the Jews (cp. ol 'ioii8iiioi) ; had 
tbey succeeded according to their intentions in condemning him. 
But the governor Lysias not only saved him then from the 
impious assault of the Jews, but from many other things." Thus 
the Catena seems to echo the first part of the gloss. In the 

.y Google 

17^ A^if£f::Ay /zi'i.xal Of fbiloloct. 

«r::^-rajed Gn«fc '5cr-I>, SSi. 12 ioIL'i ex*a3<r those featnres of 
UK Araccsas vh>:& real tbe ^xas sre ahscoL F«- ccuni^ it 

nnx: <i 7«j At vn. ofe tamw^t* s 41^ warn, J* ■■ ■X«r«, ib 
Acts xxir. 24 «^ »ji;>o» • KL{ wim I^MinlCti >y iAf; ^Mi ifq 

'liili.i ^twx V ^ M B >w BbIv [qsac rogabot Tidere Puiliim ct 
andire wn-im. Tojns ^ I: ar s a tsiac eft ea aocessK-it PanhiiD (so 
S>i* **, ~- Tbe Catena cnxsoKsts as iixlovs. a&er odng the verse 
acoorc:r.g to tbe Arm. V;:lgaie: ~TIus moch iben we say. If 
Fciijc bad found Eui^t vith him, be vouid nerer bave done tbifc 
He wou'.d not hare Dodertakeii at aH to bear aoythiog Erom a 
bad and coodemoed man. Moreover, tbe wiJc also listens, aloi^ 
with the governor, which seems to me to be a mark di great 
respect. For imless be had tboughi a i-exy great deaJ about him, 
be woald never have taken fats wiie to share tbe imervjew. And 
it seems to me that tht tcrife aIio was eagerfy dcsirota ef lit 
same; but she was a Jewess and not alien to PaoL" This gloss, 
then, which is not in D or any Greek codex, but only in the 
Syriac, was also in the Greek text used by Cfarysostom's master. 
The first part of the above as &r as "condemned man" is in 
Savile, 890. 33, 34, but not the rest 

Acts XXvi. I rirt i UoCkot (vrfiMt np X'*f*' ir*)ivyim. In Syi*" 
thus: Tunc ipse Paulus confidens et in spiritu sancto consoU- 
tionem accipiens eztendit maoum. The Greek Cbrysostom has 

(Savile, 897. 17) i ii naiXot iitra wapp^«iat 04F)r]i*rai Xatrw, ov 

(oXnatvwr. So also in the Armenian, which, however, does not 
reveal the rest of the gloss. 

The above examination of tbe commentary of Chrysostoni in 
its double form warrants the following conclusions : 

I. This commentary is founded on some other lost commentaiy 
which was based on a Western text of the Acts, 

3. Of this lost commentary and of the Western text on which 
it was baaed, more traces remain in the Armenian form of Cbiy- 
flostom than in the Greek, e, g. at Acts 4. 9, 6. 10, 7. 21, 11. 17. 
la. 10. 13. 50, 15. 12, 15. 26, 15. 34, 15. 41, 16. 6, 16. 37, 18. 12, 
18. 27, 19. 14, 31. 25, 24. 24. 

3. Inasmuch as in this respect the Armenian text sets rowe 
fully before us than the Greek, the original form of Chrysostom's 
work — for the Western glosses added in it cannot be ascribed to 
the influence of the Armenian Vulgate — it is probable that in 

.y Google 


Other respects also, wherein it differs from the Greek, it gives us 
a truer form of text, viz. in its more orderly sequence of com- 
ments, and in the many additions which it makes. We may 
indeed suppose that it represents the text from which Chrysostom 
lectured; whereas in the Greek we have only the shorthand 
report taken down by his hearers. 

4. The older commentator, used by Chrysostom, must have 
written in Greek, and have used a Greek Western text. For in 
no other way can we explain the verbal agreement with the 
Bezan Codex or with Codex 137 of the Western glosses pre- 
served in Chrysostom's Greek, e. g. Acts 12. 22, 13. 28, 6. 10. 

5. The commentary used by Chrysostom cannot therefore have 
been EphrCm's, for the latter was in Syriac; and glosses coming 
to Chrysostom through a Syriac medium would not have retained 
the form of the Bezan Greek. Yet the frequent ascription in the 
Catena to Ephrem of portions of Chrysostom's text renders it 
almost certain that the two writers used the same source. In 
some cases of such agreement between Ephrem and Chrysostom 
we may suspect a &]se ascription on the part of the calenist ; but 
in other places there is an agreement which does not admit of this 
explanation, e. g. Acts 9. 4, 16. 39, 17. 14, 18. 19, 8. 19. 

6. The Greek Western text used by Chrysostom's master was 
purer and ampler than that of the Bezan Codex ; for it contained 
many glosses which are recognisable as Western and are retained 
in various sources — especially in the margin of the Syriac — yet 
absent from the Bezan text, e. g. Acts i. 18, 13. 43, 19. 5, 26. i. 

7. Since there once existed a more comprehensive Greek 
Western text than the Bezan, yet verbally the same therewith so 
far as we can compare them, it is clear that the Bezan Greek has 
been cut down and shorn of certain glosses in order to conform it 
with some other form of text — perhaps with the old Latin which 
accompanies it. 

8. Some of the glosses absent in D may be supplied in their 
Greek form from Codex 157, e. g. in Acts 13. 43, 23. 24. 

9. The existing codices of Chrysostom's commentary on the 
Acts should be examined to see whether any of them contain the 
same traces of a Western text as does the Armenia form of the 

OinnD, Ehclihd. FrED. C. CONYBEARE. 

.y Google 

=j.:"*Xs;os OF the 


e aaryti^a 

^aod tbe »seaiB,io 

=--r^ n- c>.:je ina ilx :iae x snxud. be cae to die lemote 
:=f»=c= n ::» 7 . wirle n jim n' 3eii y« aaodber CzpUottion 

It «:U ]« A.-ucs£ Taic «tze'^K :3e Lnr w^ich we have been 
^s>.Tas=^ «XT^ arinits hut ar ans wiae Lat. rfp- b from 
st.~;w Ijt r- _ : r jjig r'- u g Z^, ■'. rneae sc&oeus bave iodaded, 
a "neu- S3iin:its a' -«=^~ ± - ;ia **r-'irr -^a^, kxtbs in vhidi Idg. ^ 
w-s- £iu X 3kiu» .n riesK s j±vk /: aac abo in tbe other 
i=^:i-j.t=s. T-MM :3<?r :^^ir:i ;=«■ a as :^ repicsentatrve (tf earlier 
'■i--. . i---ot Z^- J «« sacu-C «ir«i. wx -^jt-, bat -xfc-; c£ 
ft~TT£ ^ju j rssfx. wdr JWLir« rmirtet ,cc which t, Bn^^mann, Gr. 
r ix-i tm *jic T-.-n r'''~^'i i^ ice, p. iSS\/Mk»t from eaiiier 
'-,;rt«- r-,-i=: *.'-i~-^.f-s ^-t rt^ *ji^^-9*s (cL Siolz, Lat. Gr.', 
s^^;:. p. ;55 .rc r-,i(= *7 hn-f-^u^i Jt 'JctO-**-* (t. too Plants, ib., 
ei:c ^ :SS. acce :. |;57- p^- J^cJ besxic tbe kiadnd Jlinn (on 
»^ci T. --rn jL tJ^, fk^TKS Oxxa tai^tr Jufhna, vuAm &om 

' F ,-c :i« wr-r—r-ra -■-'•« jc lij- Ti? ■*•« w^ as b; JJ in Latin, t. Oitboff 
L3 M.TT^ Vx:nK. vu^ ^~ F- ^ • Bra^BUD. Gt. II, $66, on Lat. tai'tv-i, >iul 
jc.<_-, Li:. Gr '. Jj^ p. At : «*i S»» Uw *»«« lepttsenUtwn of Idg. ? in Italic 

.y Google 


earlier volva, fem. of adj. "volvo-s from votoe (v. Lindsay, ib., ch. 
II, Saa. and IV, §20).' 

Of the examples quoted to prove that olv- became alv-, two 
include forms from Italic as well as from Latin; and on this 
ground von Planta (ib., §96, pp. 188, 189) writes: "Perhaps the 
frequent appearance of a is to be explained by the assumption 
that, just as &tt became Su in Pr. Ital. time, so also, contempo- 
raneously and before the assimilation of /« to U, otu became al%." 
But the change of Sti- (preserving Idg, S) to J«- cannot have 
been Pr. Ital., for the change did not begin to take place in 
Latin till the 3rd century B. C. at the earliest (v. supra, p. 457), 
and hence, if this change of Jtf* to dM- is to be regarded as Italic 
as well as Latin (a view which von Planta, ib., §45, p. 115, can 
hardly be said to have esUblisbed with any certainty, v. supra, 
p. 444, note i), it can only have arisen in the individual dialects 
long after the break up of the Prim. Italic community. This 
being the case, it follows that neither could a change of oio- to 
oA--, contemporaneous with that of dv- (preserving Idg. iJ) to &M-, 
have been Prim. Italic, and that, if the change of ^A^ to alv- ever 
took place at all, it was at any rate a change belonging to the 
individual development of the different dialects. 

The examples which have been cited are as follows: 
(i) Lat. vulvae valvolae e-vallere. 

valvae ' folding-doors ' (also vaiva sing.), valvolae ' husks, sh^s, 
pods of beans' have been derived by Thurneysen, ib., p. 160; 
King and Cookson, ib., ch. IX, p. 188, from earlier Lat. *volv'* 

'Linds>7, ib., cb. IV, §§17,10, Xtijt down thtt Lai. 0, in the accented u 
welt M the onacceDled lylUble, before / with a consoDant (not U) became u. 
Euuple* thewing a conMnanl other than u. o^ which inslancei have been 
{iTCD ia the text, are tomulto from earlier eomcllo (C. I. L. I 548, tatter part of 
•eeond centary B. C); pf^er from esrlier Pi^er {C, I, L. I 559 of 132-131 
B. C) ; calpa from earlier ealpa \ culmtn contruled with eSlimm tSlttuma (: Gk. 
t^mei^T); uitimut from earlier eZiiinK< (: Osc. ulliamam); vuilltoia earlier 
Vftt; itultitt contrasted with ilbHdtit; muktut ftom 'meltta-i. Cf. also m from 
earlier «, eipecially before naialj; tmgtds : Gk. 4mf ; ungtio wtgtitiilum fTom 
earlier 'iiivw- ; hkcmi : Gk.iytof 'bow, hook'; uncia from older intHa to Gk, 
trior 'mau. balk'; iimc from older knu; lumbta from earlier 'Zwn^ (prob- 
ably from Idg. *ibio^ii>->. Bmpnann. Gr. I. §370) ; umjd'bosi of a ihietd' and 
amUI-iiu-i: Gk. ofi^aXii (Undiay, ib., ch. II, gai, IV, §gi7, 10; Brusmann, 

'Schweizer-Sidler alto, ib., §11 (7) (4), p. 13, deriTei vahat from earlier 
*t«Aw,bat he r^ards il ai an example o( '*(! for Rafter f"(cf. §6. pp. 176 
•qq.. infra). 

.y Google 

r#- F£llCLOCY. 

rtm fBT^er Lat. *vehc (pre- 
. 5cni. L»L Gr.', §8, p. 257), 
n^ TzZ. £p'~: TOD Planta, lb., 
:i£3 aJSG LaL e-vmllere 'eot- 
-He' GL ..riOr^p. 'Hiilse.* 

>- {pah- vaU-), 
E also -kA'- 

■^^ V-- = := ss -Bgnz. la-^ we ncib'tf vaholae e-val- 
i". :i ^t -.=^s: .Azr-r-r— i{ ir 3c SB^ -*'-g- ( c£ Fuhmu, etc., 
J--.- r- »--= r=- r-=r3 af zx «t;rds nnder discus- 
*^-i » — - -— ■= :ss^ = =E T.l:m-^x atrxi ot dme: (1) vah^a 
r -si--5c ■•--_--^ =>-:,^ 3. I. A=as i:^cin:.) 80 B. C, 
-■"•-^ r.r ^ 2. ~ : r-ir* .V«rt. 116-28 B.C.). (3) 
ifc^s - "-.^-s >. ~> 5. ■ _ :x^»jg C^THDcDa fl. 50 A. D.), 
- -.i_— ~--- :r~--: a. T- ' 3:3 oci earliest record of 
-»i^- -— .-* =--- :* -r^zz.-' :-aC3£ ar :S$ B. C. Now we can 
.■v-»-; •-.:: .— -^i:r— tije j^ -*ir- iifci a:c= o»ced its change to 
^fc^ .-V ~— i^-'s. -T i:«^ a-! r»; ^scr^oas extant — Schnei- 
isr r— J^i. ~"^ >=. ;^ * aoi i^ /" — both of which have 
■^^•— r-— •■ =c =.u-."ir^ .-i *T-'i-fc--j aad the sabjugatioii of 
-t--.^- * -rx ijr-^ --. X Fii-as Noc^ac in 189 B. C; of 
.iics: ~*-.- ;sc~_-c ,-iE?. ::^ .*' s»«s rxriMs, IJ5 a) FtUvius. 
.-,-rr--:; : s •— - i::..^.— • t^-t •« siircji hiT« -*fr- and -«A'- both 
i«r - .-.-w; :-.-.= aH-:t=- -r,=~ tc nte cii lie same date. Moreover, 
i :;^; -tr* ,t T' Se^ Ksi Coccsoo. and von Plants 
wft -.-r-— .* •!; s^.■\;-c i^'-i " kss=« see o^that -^A- became 
-ir- BS w^ ; te -t^-- lu: ira; i w^iE: ;±7^:cj;h three stages, at least 
a r:»; ;*!« .-i :i« .sir- i^-^s* .-t niT-. vii- hret vaJv-, secondly 
r^r- i-iv; ..; ri-i iz i =n:i iirw period a reaction to vah-, 
• i<;-ft.-s T.6- - m-i^rtis ,-",i~i.- Lix: -S c^sac^e to Fiiivius* under- 
w^-ic >,- ----W!: .riTAr-^ w :j:riTer. Heoce it seems very unlikely 

; .1.- lu* i-io» Ti» >.-!(! urr 1 i.»:£ L;=isiT.ih..(i, IV. §*)(3). iBsign 
-^ ■ ■> !e »«■».- ;S~ ?. C *i 1 1*5 i »»s?:s»cd bf Schneider, L c, lo the 
»<■*.- ?. .X S».-c» T-..;r -N.^^s sccas :.- =e ;o belong lo the Mn« ysM — 
ijji ; t ; s; ?. w :4* ii^ -"i' :i< ewsay wi^.-i they commemonle. 

< 71.. ^.(11 n^T.-^nrri: ^ :!: i c^:^. u s^cwn iboTe id the text, was &t 
le-ii; Kf ei- ^ *s :*c 5- v'- ^: -^ ■'■''™ sieiriRg -j*- lineered on tor > long 
;3tf i.:rr :-J.: J^e. Ws i=i /■-■.Viiu ia Erbem. Epienph. VIII 4A c. ISI 
R C. O, I I- I 5M *2^- 55;- ^'^ ■-■"' lJo-119 B. C, etc. [t. Linduy, ib.. ch, 
IV, *>.• : '. Sm.rtmi OKVsrs i^jia in Schneider, ih,. 199, 4. of I06 B. C. 

.y Google 


that vah- vail- can be derived from earlier volv-, and we must 
seek some other explanation. That tfae a of vtdv- is not Idg. is 
obvious from the tact that a finds no place in the Idg. Ablaut 
/-series (Idg. tjml^} Hence the only possible explanation is 
that vaht- vail-, if connected (as is probably correct) with Lat. 
voho, are the representatives of Idg. •»?-*- [cf. ul^nu- in Skr, 
sr-ifi-H, Brugmann, Gr. II (= Eng. ed., vol. IV), §596, 2]. 
(3) Lat. saivos, Osc. aaXaFt Salaviis, Pelign. Salavafur. 

salvos, according to Thumeysen, ib., p. 160, and King and 
Cookson, ib., ch. IX, p. 188, is from earlier *solvos : Skr. sdrvas, 
Gk. *SKfos SKot, LaL sollus (and solus'), so that, according to 
them, soUus : salvos = *c6vos : cdvos (supra, p. 447). Parallel 
forms from Italic are given by von Planta, ib., §45, p. 115, so that 
we have two groups : (i)shewing0: CV. Sk{F)ot,l^l.soUus, Osc. 
still-; (2) shewing a: Lat. salvos, Umbr. saluo- saluvom, Osc 
aakafi Salaviis, Pelign. Salavaiur; von Planta thinks that the 
Pr. Ital. paradigm was "solus *solvei 'solvit *solum, etc, and that 
the next step was the change of -olu- to -o/v-, whence *solus 
*saltt^ "saludi *solum, etc, and then sal- spread to forms which 
could not have shewn it by any regular development [e. g. Umbr. 
saluvo; whose original form must have been 'solevo {-luv- from 
-/<*- from ■leu-'), so that its (i)ol; not being followed at once by 
■f, could not have become (j)al- except on the analogy of forms 
where (s^aht- had been regularly developed from (s)olv-']. 

But the following is, I venture to think, a simpler explanation : 
Group (i) come from Idg. *sol-ya- ; in Group (2) the Latin form, 
and the Oscan and Pelignian forms (whose second a is merely 
anaptyctic) represent Idg. *;^vi>- [(: O.Irish sldn 'whole, sound, 
complete, full,' probably from *sl-no-), cf. Brugmann, Gr. II, §66; 
Stolz, Lat. Gr.', §43, p. 284], and then, on analogy of these latttr 
fbnns shewing sal-, the Umbrian word assumed the form s&luvo-, 
(3) Lat. ma/us, Osc. mallom mallud malud. 

Osc mallotn mallud malud, Lat. malus are to be derived, 
according to von Planta, ib., §45, p. 115, §96, p. 188, from Prim. 

'Sec Brugmann, Gr. t, §309; Barlholonue in Beu. Beitr., vol. XVII, pp. 

*I hate bracketed iIIhs because it leems certain that ve mutt tepatate it 
enlirelT rrom h^m, *. Lindtar. ib., ch. VII, §39 (4). and von Planta, Jb., §96, 
pp. 189. 190; each of whom ofFen a nev eiplination of tilm. Of the two, 
Linduy'i Kent (be more probable. (Cf. also Lindsay, ib.,ch. IX, §51, where 
(••A* should be read in place olteUve). 

, Google 


Ital, *mabto- (ct Vulgar Latin *malvax, the existence of whidi 
is proved by French mauvais, according to von Planta, ib., §96, 
p. 187, and the writers there cited ; but see also Buck, Der 
Vocalismus d. Osk. Spr., ch. I, p. 16), from still earlier Prim. 
Ital. *v%olvo- beside Gk. fioXvr*. 

On p. 189 and in §156, p. 319, however, von Planta himself 
admits that, if Ostboff's new theory of the sonants (in Morph. 
Unters., vol. V, p. iv) is correct, mal- in these Oscan and Latin 
words may come from *^l-. Or again, these forms shewing nuU- 
may just as easily come from *ml, and thus we have the two 
grades of ablaut *mol- (Gk. /uAirm) and *m7[03C mallom maUtid 
malud malaks (cf. possibly Vulg. LaL *mab)ax supra), LaL 

§6. The pcssible change of Lot. vS- (i. e. yd-) from Idg. *ifi-, 
inilially or preceded by a single explotive or spirant, Ic Lai. vd- 
it. e. Md-y 

The influence of the v (i. e. 9) was, in the opinion of some 
scholars, sufficient at a certain period to cause tfae change of LaL 
vS- (i. e. (fJ-) from Idg, *^-^ initially or preceded by a single 
explosive or spirant, to LaL vd- (i. e. vd-). Von Planta (ib., §45, 
I^p. lis, ti6) has endeavoured to prove this change also for Italic, 
but the d of the only example cited from Italic is more probaUy 
to be regarded as original Idg. d. I will leave this example, 
therefore, to be discussed last, after the examination of a few 

'Some would even go further, thinking thit the inflncDce of (hu poeible 
change should be eilended also to Lat. -giiif-, contaimog tum^trrigitial 9. Thai: 

Lit. fuattuor, according to the view of de Sauunre, ib., p. $3, wonid come 
from *;w«iwr from earlier ^qiutttar l^utlhttr : ^quittuer = tola : *qiiili\. Bat 
Brugmann, Gr. (Eng. ed.) Til. §i68, p. ir, scemi more likelj to be right in 
holding that the a (instead off) in V,U.. quaituffr jHadru- quaJrd-gimtd a due to 
the influence of Lat. juartus. 

Lai. fuariiit, according to Schweizer-Sidler, ib., §ll (7), p. 13. and Stoli. 
Lat. Gr.', p. 385 (Naehtr^e), might come from earlier Lat. 'qtiertta beiide 
Praenest. QuurM (Schneider, Dial. Ital. Sel. I I, No. 317), both of which would 
then be derivable from Idg. 'ftifr-U: In that cale there would be no need 
[with Brugmann, Gr. I, §306, III, §i6S, p. 13 (Eng. ed.), and Stoti. Lat. Gr.*. 
§43, p. iSj. §91 B, p. 351] to assume the existence of a long lonant liquid in 
the original form in order to explain the a of Lat. qaariHs. But the latter 
neveitheless appears the belter solution of the diflicult}'. A suggested expla- 
nation of the e of Praenest. Queria beside Lat. qtiarlut (assuming the ar of the 
latter to be the representative of Idg. r) will be found below on p, tSi. 

, Google 


Latin words in which the suggested change may conceivaily 
have taken place.* 

iinis may perhaps come from earlier Lat. *cuSnis : Gk. km**, 
according to de Saussure, ib., p. 102, note i ; Stolz, Lat. Gr.', 
p. 358, §10; King and Cookson, chb. VI, p. 133, XII, p. 303. 
Schweizer-Sidler, ib., §11 (6), p. 12, on the other hand, regards 
edftis as an anomalous form instead of *rvAiu (from Idg. if), 
while Fick, VergL Worterb. I*, p. 429, offers yet another expla- 
nation, deriving edn-is from earlier *citan- with a-Ablaut beside 
•f¥^ (= Idg. *|f^). 

vaUtj 'low ground by rivers, marsh-meadow, valley' has been 
brought together with Lat Velia [on which Serv. ad Aen. VI 
359 writes: "Velia dicta est a paludibus, quibus cingitur, quas 
Graed Aq vocant"; also the Velia at Rome, which, according to 
the remark of Dion. H. I 20, would seem to have been so called 
from iKat] and Velitrae [cf. Sil. 8, 379 : " Quos Setia et e celebri 
miserunt valle Velitrae"] and Gk. !Kos (from */*Xof), from Pr. 
Idg. *uel: vailis may possibly come from earlier Lat *veUis 
&om still earlier Lat *vol-ni-s\ cf. its opposite Lat. coUis 'hill' 
from earlier *c0l-ms : Lith. kai-n-a-s 'mountain,' Gk. unUW-r 
'hill ' from Idg. stem-form *golen- (Brugmann, Gr. I, §308 ; Lind- 
say, ih„ ch. IV, §85) from Idg. ^gel- 'to raise' (v. Fick, Vergl. 
Worterb. I*, p. 386). 

sardare 'intellegere' [Naevius ('quod bruti nee satis sardare | 
queunt *), Paul. 323] may perhaps come from earlier Lat *s^ardare 
from still earlier Lat ^suordare* beside Lat. ab-surdus.* The root 
would be Idg. tj sytef 'shine' seen in Skr. siar 'light, heaven, 
sun,' iiuya 'sun,' Av. Afar* 'sun' (Fick, Vergl. Worterb. I', p. 
34i)r Lat. ser-inu-s 'bright, serene' (Brugmann, Gr. I, §170). 
The transition of meaning from 'flash, Ught' to 'perception, 
intelligence' may be paralleled by that seen in Idg. ^ gHt; 
whose or^^inal meaning was probably 'to flash, i. e. of light' 
[:Skr.feA/ (i) 'brightness, light,' (2) 'torch,' (3) ' flag, banner ' 
(v. Grassmann, Worterb. zum RV.}, cit-rd- 'shining, glorious, 

'Od lAL vaivai, which Scbweiiei-Sidler, ib.. §11 (7) (J), p. 13, derivet from 
oilier Lat. *tv/Mu, legarding it at ui inttaoce of the change in tjueilion, viz. 
"ifai 6 ■fler c," tee p. 1 73 tapr». 

' For the repreMntatioD of Idg. iff- bji Latin >- as veil ai bj Latin l^- tu; 
Tid. Sioli, Lat. Gr.*, §63, 3, pp. 303, 304. 

*Cr. L. Mflller') note on NaeTint, I. c, "sarJau, hinc dncitar aiturAa." 

.y Google 


wonderful,' Av. ciy-ra ' wonderful,' O.N. A^idA 'hng,btBess,' Meidk-r 
' brijjht,' OHG. Keil-ar 'shining, clear, bright,' NHG. Ariier'bright, 
clear,' O.CSI. c/jff 'honour'], and thence 'flash, of the inteUect' 
[: Slcr. citid-m 'thought, spirit,' cUti-f 'thought, intelligence,' A v. 
eisid- 'wisdom']. The Skr. root ci/-, as a verb, shews both 
meanings.' The same transference of meaning may be seen also 
in Mod. Eag.JIasA=:iJ) 'flash of light,' (2) 'flash of intdlect,' 
e. g- ' it 7?ajA<rf across me'or'across my mind.' Thus, 
sardmrt and aisurdus we see the same transition from tbe 
original meaning 'flash, shine' to that of 'intelligence.' sardare 
= ' intellegere,' a^-n(r</tu = 'non-imellegeos, senseless, stupid'; 
cf. Ter. Ad. 3, 3, 32 ratio inepta atque absurda. 

SHdsum, "colos . . ., qui fit ex stillicidio fiimoso in vestimento 
alb«.i" (Fest.. p. 302 Miill.), is to be derived, according to 
Schweiier-Sidler, ib„ §11, p. 12, §17, p. 19, from earlier 'suarsmn 
from e*rlier *sKarsum ' schmutziger, schwarzer Fleck,' beside 
I.Ht. ivrJts^ which comes from earlier *suerdes (cf; Lat. seror 
friwi •.i*r,vr\ connected with Lat. surdus, and referred to a 
atMtMul l*r, ld(i. s' siter \ Skr. ivar- 'injure,' so that surdus means 
*lu))Mimr either as regards colour or sound (see G. Dunn in 
Clrtan, Rev., vt.»l- VI, 1892, p. 2), sudsum and sffrdes refer to 

( '/■** tt\'rdg^rvup Lai. vdedre, etc., Umir. vakase, etc.* 

[('.h.i'f fJiUfii> f.liifos vdcucs ue derived, according to Thnm- 
evaen, ib,, p. i6o; King and Cookson, ib., ch, IX, p. 189; Stok, f.r.', p, ijS. Sio. and in Hist. Gramm. d. Lat. Spr., vd. I, 
part I, \\ 114, §101 d, (cf. also von Planta, ib., pp. 116, 117), 
from nlil*r n^*-- fmm Idg. *^.'i- : Idg. *«/*- in Skr. root va3- 'to 
wish,' C'ik. «\«» frttm */<«» 'willing.' But it is very difficult to 
bflif\e UMi."* Thiirneysen, 1. c, pp. 161, 162) that the meaning 
* willingness' cviuKl pt^ssibly have developed into the meaning 

Hf, for the vfiiul. ciieJ Kick. Wi^l. Worierb, I*, pp. ao. 31. uid Bnigiiuiini 
k'li. n. i:^74, Ti), I'.u. t't^ iSl. SIT, )<H (.£"£■ Ed.): Gnsmuuin, WSrteib. urn 
RV.,., V...A 
*\.(. «!..< Sl.iti, I jt, V.t.', §*ij. •. p. ,«H- 

* I .li>iii» thii w>iitl-£i\>»p in ihr text, inaimnch u it vetiU a more dettiled 
htn (\>uKI hr fivf n in ■ note ; but I enclose the discauioa >b 
■t.. In .hpw ihit 1 J>> rfgitj the word-groDp in qaeitioo u 
I I Al, ■>'^ [y\. t. »>< I'n'in Llf. itX) chaaged to i^-. 

, Google 


' emptiaess.' * Hence it will be well to reconsider the words 
ooder discussion. 

That these Latiii words for a long (ime shewed voc- in the first 
■yUable is undeniable (see esp. Wagner on PlauL Trin. prol. ii, 
and Munro on Lucr. I 530), and indeed we can trace the form 
wr- as in existence all through the classical period of Latin right 
on to the age of Domitian. To say nothing of the MSS of 
Plautus and Terence, it is manifest from Sard, bogare that the 
form vdcare existed about 331 B. C, the date at which Sardinia 
(which had been seized by Rome in 238 B. C.) was formed with 
Corsica into one Roman province; Span, hueco proves that 
vic{u)os was the Vulgar Latin form at the time when Spain was 
made a province (viz. sot B. C) ; that *vdcitus was the Vulgar 
Latin form about 100 B, C. is proved by O.Fr. voU 'empty'; 
vdcSHe is the spelling on the Lex Repetundarum of 133-123 
B. C, and in the Lex lulia Munlcipalis of 45 B. C (v. Lindsay, 
ib,, ch. II, §4), and, in point of fact, if Hunro's note on Lucr., 
1. c, is correct, the fonn vac- does not appear in inscriptions 
before the age of Domitian. The evidence from the Italic 
dialects must now come into consideration. Umbrian, ihe only 
dialect which has preserved the forms at all (so far as our scanty 
records allow us to see), never shows voc-, but always vac- : 
Vttsitom 'vacefactum, rendered null and void,' vakaze vacose 
'vacatione, inter missione,' all of which, together with the Latin 
forms which shew vac-, von Planta, ib., §45, pp. 116, 117, derives 
from an earlier voc-, endeavouring thereby to strengthen his 
case for extending the Latin Law, that Pr. Lat. dv- (preserving 
Idg. d) became Lat. dv-, to Italic as well [cf., however, p. 446, 

'Tbe exact development of the meiniDg, u giveD by Thumeysen, 1. c, is: 
"'villiKMin gegen etwu, ihm r«uin seben,' daon alleeraeiD 'Taum gcwthren. 
Iter lein.' " It teems to me that, if the connexion of Ihe Latin form* under 
diKuision wiih Id^. 'yi'i- were correct (a riew which doei not recommend 
iUelfvery much), the meaning 'emptjr' for the Latin formi might be explained 
«Dch more easily by a comparison of the Sanskrit, than of the Greek, rep- 
rcMiiUtiTes of Idg, "j^*-; cf. e.g. Skr. root vaJ- 'la be eager' (Whitney, 
Stnikiit Roots, Verb-forms, etc.. p. I5S), ' wish to hare, with for, deiire, long 
(or, cOTef {Grassmann. WOrterb. lam RV.), uKj- (from tool wal-) 'longing, 
dcsiroQs.' mJAia- [= uJAiya- (from root vaJ-)] ' worthy to be desired, desirable.' 
Hence we might trace the fotlowint; dcTelopment of the meaning for Lat, 
vnuM, etc.: (i) ' be eagerly desirous, long for something,' (3) ' be without, be in 
want of something desirable,' (3) 'be empty.' Bnt, *s said aboTc, the con- 
nexion of Lat. vaetiai, etc., with Idg. *tffi- leems uDsatisfactory (cf. p. iSo. 
note 3, infra). 

.y Google 


note (7)]. But another explanation of the fonns seems belter; 
Brix, commenting on the form vocivas in Plautus, Trin. prol. 11, 
unlike the above-mentioned scholars, regards Lat. vacioos as the 
older form, whence later nviwf " durcb Abschwachung desnio 
0," adding as explanadcm of the later forms which shew vu; 
" die gemeinfMUsaische Form vaatus hat das ki^fUge a der ersten 
Silbe nacb der Anflostmg des f in n wieder zuruckgenibrt" 
This view, that vof- is the crider form of these words, seems to 
me correct for the foUowii^ reason : it is more than likely that 
Lat. nfmu 'empty' contains the same stem as the forms which 
we are discussii^'; vimts may perhaps come from *vac-i-iu-i, 
ct Lat. eximtn from ^ex-^x-men from *-ag-s-men, dia from 
'*,r-,a frism *mg'S-li, veham from *t«ey-(= Idg. ^9e2A-)s-l0m 
l,v. Bru^mAnn, Gr. II. §76. pp. 199, 204, 205 ; Lindsay, ib., ch. 
IV, §it6^ p. 303\* nimu occurs as early as Naevius: ' Plerique 
oniDCS su^iguntUT sub ranum iudidum' (Bell. Punic, L 73, L 
Mu:'<T. 1SS5. The reading is not quite certain), and Enniui: 
\vtin«s dunt consilium vanum' (Q. Enni Carm. Rel. Fabulae, L 
417. L. MiilW. iSSj^: T^JmitrnJa, formed on noau, is to be found 
as ennv as Pacurius (L 1x3. in SooL Rom. Foes. Fragm., by 
vVw kiSbeck. xvJ. I. 1S71X The early use of the word vdiau 
fe'i'v prox'cs the andquity of tbe stem vdt-.viMits being formed 
h\yn ^■^.- i^.vt the Utter became tv<-. If therefore we are 
r.>;>it in i^cri^-inj; Lat. ;>nkj from sic-, we cannot bnt conclude 
tSst r.>. ■ v'^ '■■^^'•T *-■"" shewn by Urol»iao) was the original 
t^vm i^t" !>>* Ijir.a and Vmhrian words which we have been 
,VB,»^ n>:,' *nd we sHan *e<i inclined to agree with Lindsay (lb., 

■ '■ —vi .(fjfrwf ■ nB«-nt irrETiMi ;>i»; boili in vamtmi and im «aniim were 
,,,^ ..vr-s-«'> ir. if* l^-.-t. at frsnsTBK for at-nm^ (T. Lindsajr, ib., cb. 
■A ^- ». .^.O 

.. .-,„, ,^«..rt; ,v«»t frem ;ht ixa •tw.-mn, at sedated by KioE tai 
,-„Vv-.n K. .-»> 'X f i5* *7».-tat;inos hrvt yieliei *fagwmi, d. iiignm : 

^, :-^- .t <i>-^ (v<«s<h> a mir.rviEnd a! Two elcannits, aad tfaoold be 

V '.• -•■ -. -Kr 1;-.; *i.-n>rt>:, fw-.cnuiinf frnm 1,T|;. 4«i- 'to fiU.bedeficientj 
'. •.-■ --iv ■•■'■■>■' •' '*''•■■' pvnloinf ;ht iiiBEnin£ oS Ae Ixtlic wordi under 

„ _,.,.y nviv M^'Iv :har. ThDmtT^iCE's ncplanalion, ». sapri). in 

,,1 I ...^ ..- ^ w-.i htw hwr. f/irmpc troin ihe roW witboot 4* eiemenl 
. . ' V V- -1. V'.-rt-i W.i-'prK, r>. JjS. '"'hp otn-ioQsly r^ardl the Towel- 
, . ,, . .... -rt^.; w/wi- ■* I'tC- li^f »'"• ?'■"*• '*^ P- •■>*■ *^ *•" 
'. , , . .„.,. ■ 1,. , ^. <*f BtLfssRV on The Oricmof Lat-inrfandGk. 
„ 1, I ( » ,.>, «,,\ K- TM'h'r<Wri ■: »D enrlv flalrl and also a paper entitled 
. 1' > , \-.-> o 'V lii,; ,.n». ' (tp ht pulilKhed sbor.h in BeDeaberger'i 

.y Google 


cbh. II, §1, p. 15, and IV, §19) that e. g. Lat. vdco for vico is 
probably nothing but an indication of the ^sound assumed in 
Latm,* at the time of Plautus and later, by a when preceded by 9. 
Perhaps also this may be the ezplanatJon of Praenesdne Qvorta 
beside Lat. guarttis (whose or is held to represent Idg. r, see 
above, p. 176, note), and also of the late Latin Quodralus^ 
(found twice on the 'Inscription du camp de C6sar & Nicopolis,' 
Rev. Archiol. de Paris, vol. X. PUte XVIII, Part II, 11. 4, 5). the 
e of which is seen again in the Greek inscriptional transliterations 
KaapoTor Kodparw (citcd by Lindsay, ib., ch. II, §1, p. 15).] 

§7. The change of Pr. Lat. av- (Reserving Idg. 3) to av-. 

It would seem a priori probable, as suggested above (p. 463 sq., 
s, V. ffvom). that just as Prim. Lat. Sv- (preserving Idg. d) became 
dv- in consequence of the very open pronunciation of the i7-vowel 
before v, so too from the same cause and at the same time Pr. 
Lat. ov- (preserving Idg. o) became av-.* It must be confessed 
that no absolutely certain example of this change has yet been 
produced.* But very strong evidence in favour of this view is 

'Doabllcii with lome ItmitRtioni; cf. Conway in the Cluaical R«iiew, toI. 
IX, 1S9J, p. 407 a. 

'CoTuen, Ueber Autipr. Vokal. and Beton. d. lat. Spr. (186S), toI. II. p. 6;, 
foUawed by Stoli, Lat. Gr.', p. 358, Eirea the word incorrectly as qtudratta, 
iaitead of QuaAatui, which is cniions, consideiing that he quotes the word 
npretily from the Rcy. Archil, de Pari*. X, PI. XVIII, where the word, 
both time* that it ocean, ii certainly a proper name, Qiuttnitui, as correctly 
written by Schnchardl, Vokaliim. d. Vulgirlat., toI. I, p. 173. 

* Lat. wiivi does not affect the validity of this change, for it certainly does 
not preserve Idg. i, beine itself based on Lat. mSvev. which comes from earlier 
Latin *mAto from Idg. V>^- (v. supra, p. 453, note t). The same applies 
also to/ivl from /Ovri, which itself coroes from earlier Lat. *fivti from Idg. 
^/ikt^k- (v. supra, p. 45a, note i), and to vivi from v6im, which itself i« from 
eailier Lat. *vivtv (,t. supra, p. 452, note l). Nor does (g)nivit the perf. of 
{.ipii-at. afford much difficulty. It probably arose in the first place on 
analog of mdv-l fdv-l vdv-l through the proportion mi-hi-s fi-ta-i vi-lu-t : 
i/lHi-lK-i = mdv-l /iv-l viv-l : {g-)ifdH [cf. Brugmann, Gr. II (= Eng. ed., vol. 
'^. SB7j], and then the i of {g)n^t was retained through the influence of the 
present {g)ni-ui (: Gk. ji-jvi>-aiaj) and of the participle passive (_g)ni-fui 
{: Ck. yiiu.T6-f). 

'We can hardly regard Ijvi (from Itivi from earlier 'H>vd) tdvS (from eSvti 
(torn earlier *cdvtil) favi (from fItviS from earlier *f&titS) as the outcome of 
eirlier 'itvi (; "Oivl) *ctvi (; ^cSvtS) */ivf <; */Ovio) ; cdvi hvi fiivi seem 
tslher to owe their a-vowel to the influence of the presents l&vi e&uti fivii. 
See. however, below, p. 193, on the participles ^iWM (later /»iu)/aiiAu<a»A(f. 

.y Google 


afforded by the disappearance of tf-verbs in Latin, scarcely a 
trace of them remaining:; we find one isolated partidpia] adjec- 
tive in -dius — namely, aegrdtus (cf. Bru^mann, Gr. II, §79, p. 231, 
Eng. ed.) from aeger (stem aegro-'), like Gk. laaS^rAt from pwMr, 
with corresponding verb-stem fua66u — but, as Lindsay, ib., ch. 
VIII, §33, p. 484, points out, Latin has preserved no corres- 
ponding verb-stem *tugrdd or *aegrd, -is, 'dmus. Another 
possible trace of the o-verbs is to be found in Lai, ro/undus 
rubicundu-s, which, if we accept the first (though perhaps the less 
likely) of the two alternative explanations [forwhichv.Bmgmann, 
Gr, II, §1103, 3, Rem., and the first of my two papers on 'The 
Origin of the Gerund and Gerundive' in the Amer. Joum. of 
Pbilol., vol. XV, part 2 (1894), pp. 195, 196], would presuppose 
the forms *rolo-m *nibu5-m (primitive infinitives in -m). There 
are, so far as I am aware, no other traces, or suggested traces, 
remaining of the o-verbs in Latin.' In a recent letter to me, Mr. 
Lindsay has accounted for their disappearance by the excellent 
suggestion that, if our Law is correct, their perfect ending -dvi 

> t Ihoaght at one time that I had diicovered evidence in Oscan of an *-Terb, 
which patied later into ihe a-conjugation, and welcomed it ai likely to 
strengthen the case, advocated by von Plants, for extending our Law to 
Italic ; but it 11 a word fraught with 100 many difficulties to allow oT onr 
basing any conclationa upon it. We may discuss it briefly here: The iijlh 
inscription in Zveuieff, Inscrr. Itnl. Inf. Dial., shews a word which has 
hilherlo been always read sakruvit, a form very difficult to explain; pcTliapi 
ihe beat eiplanation yet offered is that of Buck, Voc. d. Osk. Spr., p. 6], who 
explains it ai "ein Denorainativ, das die Flexion der primaren Verba mit -(•- 
Suffix angenommen hat, also 'lakrug-tl »talt *3akn4Jitt nach Fonnen wie lit- 
*t/enll, viHit, vtttimut"; but even this does not seem very satisfactory. Now, 
the fifth letter of this word on the insciiplion Ji V< which may perfectly well 
= i){cf.Osc. dunum ; l^ax.ditaim, Osc. upsed from *i>^-, Osc. Regatuiei: 
Lat. Rt<l6ri, and lee von Plants, jb., §§46, 47, pp. 116 sqq.), so that the wonl 
itself may perfectly well be read sakrdvit. It seemed to me possible tlut 
thissakiovit [occurring thus on our inscriplion, which shews neither of tht 
two later symbols |- (= <) and \/ (= if), and belongs to a date before 30O B.C. 
ringinZvetaielT, ib., No. 87, an inscription which shews both the two later syn- 
boU J- and V], might be an example of an early n-verb transferred later (o llie 
(■•conjugal ion, owing to the change of ilf- to mi: But. although my suggested 
reading sakrSvit, considered by itself alone, might be easier 10 explain thin 
sakruvit, there remains the great objection that Osc, saltrvisl is thai left 
quite unexplained (on this latter word cf. Buck, 1, c); hence, all thingt 
considered. I cannot but regard my suggestion ai very doubtful. Neveithf' 
leas, the difficulty attaching to the word is a sufficient excuse for mentianiiv 
the conjecture in a note. 

^d by Google 


would have become -d-oi. Thus, assuming for the moment the 
derivation of Lat rUvndus from "rotd-m- to be correct, the early 
Latin perfect *roldvi became roldvi, whence the whole verb went 
over into the ^-conjugation. It does not matter for our purpose 
whether the particular example which I have taken is a case in 
point ; it suffidently illustrates my meaning. Another verb which 
may have suffered in this way is Lat. nMw. Brugmann, Grundr. 
II (= Eng. ed., vol. IV), §776, 1 and 4, pp. 1118, 1120 (Germ, 
ed.), derives Lat ndvo from Idg. *nJ^-id, from which came 
(according to Brugmann, 1. c.) a pre-Greek form *»tfa-i», which 
was ousted by Gk. »«<!(•. But it is simpler to identify this Latin 
verb with Gk. yt6» itself, and to assume that this Latin verb, 
originally an o-verb, passed over into the d-conjugation through 
the change of its perfect *nfivdvl to ntfvdvl. 

The following is a likely example of Prim. Lat. dv- (preserving 
Ic^. o) changed to an- : 

ravis f*wj, very probably from *rStfi-*r3^- from^rt-*(:Lith. 
re-li' to shriek,' O.Norse rd-mr 'hoarse')- This is the view held 
by von Planta, ib., §50, p. rzs.* 

For the sake of completeness we must not omit to mention and 
discuss the following four instances, which have been cited by de 
Saussure (ib., pp. 106, loS) as shewing Lat. -dv- parallel to Greek 

'For the root in question compare Fick, Vergl. Wtlrterb., toI. I*, p. iiB, i, v. 
(Uz.) rtpi \ p. 396, %. T. (Aryan) raw- ; p. 539, «. t. (W«>t-Earapean) reva- : rtf.. 
■VoD Planta. ib.,gso,p, 133, suggeits that Umbr. klavlaf klavles (gen- 
enllTiupposed to nieBn 'chine'}, Lai. i'/<l:»i (= i. 'a knotty branch or slick, a 
■taff, cndgel, club' • t.'a graft, icion') clitvla (vhich is real)]' formed on c/dva 
2. '1 £nft. icion') ate to be deiived from earlier *iiiv-. and are to be 
connected with Lat. clenit. But such an explanation does not seem at all 
satiitaclory. Lat. tidva from earlier Lai. 'ilSva is much belter analysed 
fAd-M from Idg. *%!■&' : Gk. fXZ- in Ihe pple. dira-icX^ [beside the present 
■Uu ' break, break off' from earlier Gk. *iua-iTu from Idg. *ti^''i, cf. Brugmann. 
Gr. II (= IV), §661]. Thus the original meaningoft^/aiv is probably 'some< 
thing broken off, a catling,' and then in Latin this meaning has become 
confined to 'something broken off a tree or plant, a cutting.' whence I. 'a 
ctidgel,' 3. *a graft'i compare herewith the meanings of Gk. iX^/u (tUu). 
Similarly Umbr. klavlaf klavles, identified by von Planta, 1. c, with Lat. 
eliK-, may very well mean 'pieces broken off from something (not necessarily 
bon a tree), pieces of meat, sacriliciat portions'; compare herewith Ihe 
muoing of Gk. (Ua/ia (cXiiu) in St. John's Gospel, vi, 13 and 13. 

For a discnsiion of the meaning of Umbr. aanfehtaf, which occurs once 
inthephraiekUvUf aanfehtaf.Tab. Ig. II A 33, see the second of 'Two 
Papers on the Oican Word ANASAKET,' shortly to be published by Mr. 
Nsit (London). 

.y Google 


•of: They will be discussed in the text, as they merit » closer 
examination than can be given in a note ; but I eockse :be fiiA 
three within square brackets, because in these three, at acT rate, 
■Av- almost certainly does not come from earlier -dv- (Idg. ( . but 
preserves Idg. d. The explanation of the fourth iosUnce is a 
matter of extreme uncertainty, but I do not bracket it, as i: isyiu* 
possible that it may be an example of the change under dtscasaoo. 

[{g)nAtms ig)nav<ire : Gk. i-y*a{F')ia ni(/)of (according to de 
Saussure, ib., p. io8). First as regards vd(f)or: although it isao 
established fact that Latin initial gn became n at the beginning of 
the second century B. C. (v. Lindsay, ib., ch. IV, §119). yet this 
does not seem to be a change common to Greek also, hence the 
derivation of Gk. r^/)oc from earlier *ywoPiit seems extremdir 
doubtful. Prellwitz, Etymol. Worterb. d. Griech. Spr. (s. v. mm, 
p. 214), is far more likely to be right in referring Gk. pd«e ma lav* 
iHn9nim back to an Idg, ^sneu-, which is seen in Goth- smU-r-s 
'wise,' A.S. sfut-or 'wise,' A.S. SnoHnga-kdm, i. e. 'home of the 
Snodngs or sons of Snot (the 'wise' man),' whence Mod. Eog. 
Nottingham [cf. Skeat, Principles of English Etymology. First 
Scries (second edition, iSgs), §241 (a), p. 358]. To turn to the 
Latin forms (g)natmst (g)ndvare, the -dv- does not seem to be 
the outcome of earlier -mi- (preserving Idg. o); it is much more 
probable that the d is original, cf. gna-rus, where there is no v to 
whose influence the d can be ascribed. (Compare Lindsay, ib., 
ch. IV, §1, and Pick, Vergl. Worterb. I*, p. 431O] 

[papdver : Gk. rta{f){a. and Lat. pdmum, Lat. pover (inscrr,).' 
according to de Saussure, ib., p. 106, where he also connects with 
these words Gk. ird(f)n. It is not necessary here to examine 
any of these words except /o/iizw; if the explanadon o( papaver 
and caddver given in Brugmann, Gr. II, §136, p. 445 (Eng. ed.), 
and in Bronisch, Die Oskischen i< und «-Vocale, 1893, p. 193, is 
correct, the d in both these words would seem to be original; cC 
such participles as Gk. rt-rX-ij-it from rX-5- 'bear'; v. Brugmann, 
Gr. II (= Eng. ed., vol. IV), §857, i-T 

• The e«rliet fonn of L«t. fiur ' boy ' ; cf. Georget, Lex. d. Lat. Wortfomeii, 
' The two auceested «plBn»lioii» of cadaver given io Bnigmann. Gr. II. 
§136, are (t)'thki which hai fallen' (cai^ ra</a-JMWM, cf.Gk. nru/ui -corpse') 
or (a) ' that which hai been destroyed ' (which he connecti with Skr. tool W- 
"destroy." on which t. Whitney, Skr, Root* Verb-fonn», etc., p. 16). Of the 
two I piefer the foimer, but should the latter be correct, we may peitiipl 
compare Gk. utimil^oai, explained bj Hetychius as ;8J.a(i™i, aaitma, ertpqeai. 

.y Google 


[_fiavos : Gk. x^^if^^t (^^ suggested by de Saussure, ib., p. io8), 
or rather (if this identification were correct) -x3io(f)or (preserved 
in SortiK^x.koot, Eurip. I. T. 400). But ^vos is much better 
derived from either (1) Ml-tfo-s (Brugmann, Gr. II, §64, p. 136, 
Eog. cd., and von Planta, ib., §157, p. 320), with which Bnif;mann 
(1. c) somewhat hesitatingly compares O.H.G. d/do 'blue,' or 
(2) from *bhiS-ito-s (cf. the remarks of Lindsay, ib., ch. IV, §1) 
besidey'w/i'at from earlier */otvos from *tki-yo-s (v. supra).'] 

octSvas : Gk. Vfhaot (according to de Saussure, ib., p. to8). 
Thurneysen, ib., p. 154, Schweizer-Sidler, ib., §17 (6), p. 19, 
Stolz, Lat. Or.*, §10, p. 258, and Lindsay, ib., ch. IV, §2, derive 
Lat. oct&BOi from earlier Lat. "octavos. So also von Planta, ib., 
5*5. p- 115. and §50, p. lai, who cites Lat. octavos, Osc (jhtavis 
'Octavius,' deriving the -dv- from earlier -ov-, in order to 
strengthen his case for regarding our Law, that Prim. Lat. ov- 
(preserving Idg. S) became av-, as not confined to Latin, but as 
Prim, fialic; that thb latter view, at any rate, is incorrect has been 
shewn above on p. 446, note ad fin.; and although, as admitted 
above on p. 444, note 2 ad init., it b just possible that the oper- 
ation of the Law was not confined to Latin, but was extended 
also to the individual developments of Ike other Ralic dialects, 
at a date long after the split up of the Prim. Italic community, 
nevertheless, in view of the extreme difficulties connected with 
Gk. Sytoor and Lat. ocidvos (v. Brugmann in Morpbol. Untersuch., 
voL V, p. 36 sqq.), it is hardly safe to build a theory on such 
insecure grounds as the very doubtful origin of Lat. octdvos, Osc. 
Chtavis.* For other views on ocidvos c£ Meringer in Kubn's 

■ The rariety of colour iDdicated by these words, which all seem to conum 
the lame root, maj perhaps be eiptained as folIowE : Idg. *iili- (the root of 
Ltt,Jlii Fl6m, ildii 'bloom, blossom,' Goth. JiV-ma, Eag.ileiMn, Angl.- 
Sax. tlia4m, Eog. bloaom, Aogl.-Sai. ili-tnari, Eng. M ilaie, of Sowers) and 
Idg. *UU- (the root of Lit, /Umina 'congestion of blood,' Goth. ttf-bUian, 
N.H.G.dH/-4ilu<n'lo blowap, make to swell') are probablj extensions of an 
Idg, ^bhtl- by i and i. just ai Idg.//-»- and //-/- are extended from the Idg, 
^ftl- 'to fill' (v. Brugmann, Gr. I. §90, and esp. Lindsay, ib., ch. IV, §53). 
From this Idg. ^blul-, to which we may gire the meaoiog 'lo bloom,' I would 
derive, in the manner indicated in the text, Lat.yu/iwi ».tiA flioos and O.H.G, 
Mt>. These adjectives were probably at first applied indiscriminately to any- 
thing that was in bloom, and thence later became specialised with particular 
application, each to a diRerent shade of colour. 

'For* discussion of tod Planta's other argumenls in favour of hi* theory, 
V. lupra, p. 444, note 2. 

.y Google 



= 1.-3 -M-T 



X i:.^ joiD 


. -anii. 

§45. p. 

■-cis . !-^«caI? as Idg. * 
= s ,=- = W « o( Ojc 
- "- ^ B. i=;C :2c rossibJityoT 

i.-i'-a =frr!-i kbcre ia tbc texl 
.-<s.pc:^ XtctaJeC, lucR. Itat. 

, Google 


in assuming that Pr. Lat. Sv- (preserving Idg. o) became iizr-_ 
Thus Gk. dyAom and Lat. octaves would be the outcome of one 
and the same Idg. form,' but unfortunately this derivation does 
not appear to solve all the difficulties connected with this 
much-debated numeral. Gk. jyta-icorra and Lat. octS-ginid may 

Inf. Dial., No. 307) : L«t. StJiWw [cf. gennine Osc. Safin tm (inscr. of Bo*i- 
anoni Vetus id SunniDin, Z*et>iefr, ib., No. 95, and od a coin of the Social 
War, ZveUielT, ib.. No. 380)] ; Ni n m er i i 1 (inscr. of Samniuin, Zveuieif, ib., 
No. 103): Lat. NtoHeriiu [cf. genuine Osc. (Ni)umsis, inter, of NoU in 
Campania, ZveUieff, ib., No. 137] ; cf. Buck, Vocalismiu d. Osk. Spr. (1892). 
p. II. Hence it is quite pouible lliat Osc. OhlBvis owes its a to the 
inflaence of Lat. Oetdviut, If Buck, 1. c, is right in regarding the tjrpe of 
family- names in -idiii (= Lat. iditu) as borrowed from Latin, it is certain!]' 
worthy of note that Hdsidiis ocean beside Obtavi* in the inscr. of the 
Frentani (Zvetaieff, ib., No. S3), one of the only two inscriptions in which 
'Octavins' is preserred, the other being an inscr. of Capua (Zveliieff, ib.. No. 
138). Another point in favoar of my snggeiiion is that both the Owan 
inscriptions (viz. Zvetaieff, ib., Nos. 83 and 13S) on which the name 'Octaviua' 
occnrs mnst be placed among the later Oscan iDscriptions, became, in addition 
to the older symbol! | (= i) and V (= ")> ^^'t '>'>''■ sliew also the later 
symbols h (= "nd V (= <0. which " waren erst in iplter Zeit aufgekommene 
Differenzimngen des | und V" ('">'" Planta, ib., gt3, p. 44). As regards the 
txaet date of these two inscriptions Dr. *on Planta has very kindly sent me the 
following commnnicalion : " Ueber Zvel. I. I. L D. 138 habe ich in Band I, 
p. 33 roeiner Grammatik Bflcheler'* Ansicht, dass diese Inschrift wenigstent 
nicht nacD So-40 a. C. falle, cititt, man kOnnte auch etwas hoher hinanfgehen, 
aber frtlher a)s Iso-ioo a. C. mCchte ich die Inschrift jedenfolls nicht tetien. 
Noch schwieriger ist ei, Qber die Chronoti^e von Zvet. No. 83 etwas 
beslimmtes ansinmachen ; die Scbrift macht keinen allertbtlmlicben Eindnick, 
man wird am ehesten an die Zeit iwiscben i50-icx> a. C. in denken babcn 
(jedenfalls nicht nach dem Socialkrieg)." Nor does Prof. Conway venture on 
a iDDch earlier date for either of these (wo Inscriptions: in a recent letter to 
me be has given reasons for dating Zvet., No. S3 " roughly at 300 B. C.," and 
adds: "I should think that Zvet. No. 138 from Capua was written in the 
Roman period, after 31 1 B. C.; bnt it is doubtful whether in Campania, even 
witches knew Oscan after lOO B. C, or even, round Capna, after 1 50. Within 
these limits I shonld put it as late as possible." The testimony of these two 
experts concerning the date of Zvet. 83 and iiS adds weight to my suggestion 
that Osc. Chlavis may owe ilsd to the influence of Lat. Ottavim. 

'C. I- L. I i-iQS, " Inscription ei vetustissimae bello Hannibalico quae 
lidentar anteriores" (Mommsen in C. I. L. I), give us no help whatever 
towards the solntion of the problem, as. unfortonalely, they have preserved 
no example of the Latin word for ' eighth ' ; C. I. L. I 193, it is true, seems to 
shew the name ' Ociavius,' but in this inscription only the first two lettei* of 
the name have sorvived, vis. OC, the remainder [-lavf\ being due to Momm- 
sen's conjecture. 

.y Google 


be easily explained (v. Bnigmann in Morph. Unters. V, p. 36), 
but Gk. oyAo^KiuTii and Vulg. LaL octud-gintd afford the most 
serious difficulty. Brugmann, in Morph. Unteis. V, p. 37, sug- 
gests that they point to a common original, Idg. *okldM; but I 
cannot see how we should explain such an Idg. form beside Idg. 
*okl6 "oktdu 'eight' [Brugmann, Gr. II (= Eng. ed., vol. Ill), 
§1733, except indeed as the outcome, in Greek and Latin, of Idg. 
*oktav- before a following explosive or spirant (v. Brugmann, Gr. 
I, §§6ii, 612, and in Morph. Unters. V, pp. 38, 39), a condition 
which is not fulfilled in the forms under discussion. Possibly we 
should entirely separate Gk. iyboiiiaim from Vulg. Lat. octud- 
gintd, despite their apparent similarity. Gk. AyittfiKom might 
come from *Dy&«^«o>Ta (like fifq from {^w} 'life,' etc., Brugmann, 
Gr. I, §611) from *&yi»F-i,-KorTa; but Vulg. Lat. octudghUd 
remains an almost insoluble problem; the only conjecture which 
I can offer (a most unlikely one, I admit) is that Pr. Lat. "oct&vot 
may in Vulgar Latin have become *ocldus [as cdvom became 
cdum (v. supra, p. 447)], whence *ociims (the d being shortened 
before the succeeding vowel, cf. Brugmann, Gr. I, §612), whence 
"octavos [the V being restored from the oblique cases; there 
being, in other words, ' Grammatischer Wechsel' of *o£ts(y')- 
(nom., ace.) and *ocldV' (gen., dat„ etc.) ; cf. Lat. i^os and dUts 
as explained in Lindsay, ib., chh. II, §53, IV, §33]; and then on 
this "ocUsnms was formed *octffv-S-ginld, whence ocludgintd. 
Such an elab6rate explanation of ocludginid is, however, hardly 
likely to be received with general favour. 

§8. Examples of the change of Pr. io/. diphthong ou {^pre- 
serving Idg. d) to the diphthong au; and the date of this change, 
which is proved to be contemporaneous with the change of Pr. 
Lat. SV' (^preserving Idg, 0) to dv-. 

We have now discussed (b) the change of Pr. Lat. ov- (pre- 
serving Idg. 0) to dv; §3, supra ; (,8) the extremely questionable 
change of Latin and Italic -olv- to -alv-, §5, supra; (7) the 
possible change of early Lat. vo- (i. e. uo-) and -Wh (from Idg. 
UC), preceded by a single explosive or spirant, to vd- (i, e- ^d■) 
and -pi-, §6, supra ; (8) the change of Prim. Lat. dv- (preserving 
Idg. o) to dv-, §7, supra. And now, in conclusion, I hope to 
prove that Pr. Lat. tautosyllabic ou (preserving Idg. d) became 

.y Google 


Lat au (which in some cases remamed, while in other cases it 
became developed later to d &"), thus shewing a change identical 
with that which befell Lat. heterosyllabic ^v- (preserving Idg. <>), 
and thereby materially strengthening the Law which it is the 
object of this essay to establish. 

As regards the representation of Idg. tautosyllabic tn/t in Greek, 
de Saussure, ib., p. 71, well says: "On sail que la diphthongue 
ov n'cst plus en grec qu'une antiquity conserv^e ^ et 1^." There 
are. in fact, only about six instances of Greek ou from Idg. tauto- 
syllabic ou preserved.' It seems, therefore, that the Greeks at 
least found Idg. tautosyllabic ou to be an uncongenial sound; 
hence it is not surprising if on Italic soil it failed to maintain 
itself unimpaired. As regards its representation in Italic Brug- 
mann, Grundr. I, §81, remarks: "Tautosyllabic Idg. o% fell 
together with Idg. e%, and is still only traceable in Oscan as a 
diphthong," e. g. gen. sing, castrovs from stem caslru- 'fundus'; 
in Umbrian the representation is o, e. g. rdfu 'robos, rufos' (ace. 
pL) : Goth, rdu^s, gf. *rovdho-s (Brugmann, Gr., 1. c.) ; in Latin 
we find it represented, according to Brugmann, 1. c, by u and 6, 
e. g. fructas (geo. s.), fadii and rdbu-z (= Umbr. rdfo-') domos 
(= domus, gen. sing.), but Brugmann is compelled to admit that 
" it remains doubtful how this duality u and o in Latin is to be 
estimated." It will be seen from the following examination of 
Latin forms that Brugmann's statement of the representation of 
Idg. tautosyllabic ou- on Italic soil is only partially correct, for 
tautosyllabic Idg. o^ is traceable as a diphthong not only in 
Oscan, but also in Latin. Also the duality u and d in Latin 
seems to admit of an easy explanation; to which end we shall do 
well to study the following example of Latin forms shewing -ou-, 
'au-, a, p (v. esp. Lindsay, ib., ch. IV, §41). 

rotidus : raudus, Rauduscula (so. porta), raudusculum : rudus, 
raduscuium : rodus, Rodusculana porta. 

The weak grade of the same stem is apparently to be seen in 
Lat. mdis (cf. 'aes rude"). The conclusion, at which Lindsay 
arrives, is that "this variety of spelling suggests that I.-Eur, ou 
became in Latin an nn-sound, which was sometimes written, like 

'Vid. Ihe essay on 'The Origin of Lai. iaurfaod Gk. oii' (referred lo above. 

.y Google 


L^t. <t» irum I.-Eur. at, as a, somctiiiKS, like Lat. mi from I.- Eur. 
fi*. js a." The Law should, I think, be more coirectly stated 
thu? : ju»c 43 liig. heterosyllabic /nt- became Prim. LaL m-, and 
tins .ii X t;tt«r date became in- in conseqaeoce of very open 
t'lviiuiictJtoa of tile <i, so also Idg. taatosrllabic mji- became 
(>-iu. Lac. iJ:piithoDg m- i,: muikj), and (bis at a later date, also 
•IX t.vtt;^u«iio! oi' verr open pronanctati<m of the o, became «« 
V •4i*u^'.Mi:.\«aidi.n3omecasesremaiiied('«r-^; rawnu; 
. ■>!(•'*».> . V. iiihi'. wbile -SL other cases it passed into if ^ (: ruAu, 
-tv . - *.!».-■- C(v.'. r^e spelling J > results from moDOpbtbongis- 
ti-vti s.-t .'tv JL'iit'x-'Kk;. and die duality ot~ the ^wiling shews that 
"N- '<k>uiid ii(t;<tutrd !iei somewfaeic between the « and the u,' 
■wii itvim as -ji \SK -siir-.iM viiphtlioBg whose pbce they had 
nA-.ih '."^M. -irtv ^'-m. Lat; iw itseii'^ did not hold its gTOODd' 
«.t.> .V ,\iittNU^ i^^ta wiiaE iuB bem said aboTe on the Greek 
'v-i^f-a,^ii!ti-i-u M lii^. aiutt.'svtlubic 09, the soond (pncticaDy 
^■vov "Ii. ji>in-i'««ttiic XT lire moat part ia Gre^ and nitdei- 

\'\'\\t .(-x-iii>i'ii.Y -41 ::ii^ ^Ji:a piionetic change, the tmth of 
■»■>.»•> ..-«» «.-uv.-v >« jtrr.tM n idw history ot th« fiwrns just 
-.K,«-v*»i - -r, "»»..-■*; ■•mtiii£ stc. see especiailT Lindsay, L c), 

lilt Kurd a. 'Ak due of 

iiniur ■ita Pmnt \jl. 

.y Google 


Ouferdina : Aufidus Aujidius : U/ens Vfeniina Vfidius : 
O/entina 0/diiu. 
Old Latio Oufentina [e.g. C. I. L. I 51 := Schneider, Dial. 
ItaL Exx. Sel., No. 38 = F. D. Allen, Remnants of Early Latin, 
No. 28 : C. Ovioia) 0«/(entiaa) (sc. tribu) /ecil% one of the 
Roman tribes, later Ofentina, also VofenHaa and Ofeniina [Raf- 
faelli, p. 56, No. 30 (= C. I, L. XI 5702)],* is a word based on 
'Ou/ens, the earlier form of the Latian river-name O/ens, con- 
taming probably the Idg. (Ty-grade of the root [: Gk. ol9ap, 
meaning (i) 'udder,' (2) 'fertility of soil'], the a-grade of which 
appears in Lat. aber, Skr. 6dkar, A.S, uder, Lith. adr%Ui 'to 
give milk.' The Apulian river-name Aufidus (whence later 
comes the proper-name Aufidius, beside which we find C^dius 
once* and Ofdius once'), from earlier *Oufidus (probably indeed 
the pronunciation of the natives of the district, represented how- 
ever as Aufidus by the Latin writers who have preserved the 
name to us'), shews the stage au, intermediate between the 
earlier tm- and the later u- b'. Thus we have Ouf- : Auf- : Df- : 
0/- ; shewing clearly the development for which we are contend- 
ing: — Pr. LaL OK (from Idg. tautosyllabic ^)>a«>u ^.* (Cf. 
Lindsay, ib., ch. IV, §42.) 

'Thit iosciiptioo, C. I. L. I 51, ii one af the " InscriplioneB vetuilisiimae 
bello H>DDil>alico quae Tidentur anterioces." 

^Ofai&na VifeitHna O/enHna do not occur in the Index to C I. L., vol. I, 
coDtainioe " Inscriptionet TclBitiisiniae bello Haooibalico quae TJdentur ante- 
riorei" and " loicriptiones a bello Hannibalico ad C. Caeiaris mortem." 

'I inclade th[i only on the authocitf of C. I. L, I 573 (ot 71 B. C): CN ■ 

'0/diiu JD C. I. L. I 11S7. identified with Aufidiui b; Mommien in the 
ladea to C. 1. L. I, pp. 573 and JSS. (Cf. alio Buck, Vocaliimni d. Osk. Spr., 
I^l, p. II.) 

*It will be Temembered in thii connexion that Venusia, the birthplace of 
Horace, which (laodi only ij^ miles from the Aulidui. and was 00 the Via 
Appia (commenced in 313 B. C), was coloniied by the Romans as early as 391 
B.C., from which time forward it formed an important military station. It 
*u in Venniia that the remnanli of the Roman army took refuge after the 
defeat at Cannae, 3t6 B. C; nor will it be forgotten that the faUl battle of 
Cannae itself took place on the Aufidns. Hence the name of this river, the 
'lanie sonans' 'violens' 'acer' AuGdns, would be a frequent one on Roman 
lipi. and consequently pronounced with Roman pronunciation. 

*We End Ou/tnlima occarring in C. I. L. I 1363 and 1365* among the 
"Uscriptionet a belto Hannibalico ad C. Caesaris mortem." 

The hct that this old Latin spelling OM/tnlina maintained itself to quite 

, Google 


pan;cpl« of livv t^ii fis:e [from earlier *lffoi *cSVld *JdDB, v, 
5; supra;, may be derived .;c£. Havet, iIk, p. 18, aod Lindsay, ib., 
ciu rV. §43) firocD Pnm. Lat. 'Ivmios (: Gk. Xwna>, DesideraL 
' vish to batbe,' Loc LeziptL 2) *tOKios */imios} 

icrtmiuM : scriU (n. plur.) : scretuM 
may very probaUy bang together etymologically (v, Stolz in 
Hist. Gramm. ± Lat. Spr., $148/.), coining from Idg. -tfy-. 

naugaiffrime, nmucus : nagae : ndgae 
Ritschl, Op. II 423 9qq-, seems to have hit on the right expta- 
oatioD of these fonns, when be says "fidesne nobis habebitur, si 
non aliunde nisi e nauco repetere nugas b. e. naugas aniinum 
induxerimus?" Thus naugaUfriae aod nauais are earlier forms 
than nigae nogae, and are the representatives of a still earlier 
Latin *iunig: We may perhaps see the weak grade of the root 
in mtx, (gen. sing.) n/icis. (CC above nmdus : raudus : ruAts : 
roJus : rudis.') 

perhaps from earlier Latin *n>«ftM, Idg. V^^S* 'fosr* (for which 
see Fick, Vergl. Worterb. I', p. 525); weak grade in rSgire 
' roar' : Gk. ^pvyor 'roared.' ' 

)>te tiniei (t.g. WilnuDDE Idscit. Lat.. No. 1306. of 313-317 A. D.), alongiidc 
C/mliiia d/entiita V&fmHna, ii only one of the many proofs of the eliDging 
adherence to ancient forms, at a dale when the pronunciation of those ancient 
forms has long since altered. > kind of archaism so often seen in things lefal 
and political. We may compare the somewhat similar case of Lat./iWiu(on 
which see Giles. Manual of Comparative Philology. §176. p. 139, note l). 

'Other eaplanations of these words have been oflered : Thumeyten, ib.. p. 
fcn [egirds Idtia '/itus *c6lM 9S "Hit earlier forms, whence XaXia lamtHt ftuOu 
cttutm; Stoli, Lat. Gr.'. §31. regards the au of laulta laaiui as due to caw* 
lavere; Danielsson, in Pauli's Altital. Stud,, p. 164, suggests that Latin laufmi 
'priichlig' and itoiu 'Verdienst, Vonug' belong to the root liu(: Gk. aTD/ji"). 
and would, I therefore presume, separate lautm (etyinolt^cally) from lUm. 

'raueus is otherwise explained by von Plania, ib.. §50, p. laa. who derives it 
from earlier ■r.ii'icB; (cf. 'Ltt.gaiu/^ from earlier 'gavideo), based on Lai. rivis 
rdvos. which themselves are probably to be derived from *rt»o'. 'rdv^ (v. 
supra, p. 183). 

.y Google 


h'ou h-au-d h-au-t 

In the essay on 'The Origin of Lat Aawrfand Gk. ot' (referred 

to above, p. 180, note 3) I have endeavoured to prove that *au, 

Che earlier and unextended form of Lat. k-au h-au-d h-au-t^ 

comes from Prim. Lat. *ou (: Gk. oi) from Idg. tautosyllabic •«(. 


Of this word I would venture to suggest a new explanation, 
deriving it from earlier Lat *Founos from Idg. *ghMf-Ho-s* from 
either of the two Idg. roots (ij ^J"*^- 'to pour,' (2) ii/gie^- 'to 
call on, invoke.' 

(i) from ijgheu- 'to pour.' In this case Lat. Faunus* is 
formally identical with Armen. jdn 'an offering' (from Idg. 
'ghcm-no-), on which v. Bartholomae in Bezz. Beitr., vol. XVII, 
p. loi. Thus Lat. Faunus and Armen. _/^ (from Idg. ^gho^-nc-') 
■ Gk. xo(/)-ttTO-r (from Idg. *ghou-ano- or -i^no- or -ino-) ^ Gk. 
wny-ri-i ■ Gk. imyafi't. The adjcaives formed with suffix -no- 
•i^no- are, according to Bnigmann, Gr. II, §66, pp. 139, 140 (Eng. 
ed.), chiefly passive in meaning (cf. c. g. Idg. *pU-no- 'filled' 
from *pU-, the extension of the 4ptl' 'to 611' : Skr. /rogif-j, Lat. 
plmu-i; cf. also Skr. hdvanam 'an offering' from this same 
<ighe^- 'to pour'); hence ^g/um-no-s from kjghe^• 'to pour' 
should strictly mean 'poured,' whence later 'offered, sacrificed' 
(the meaning preserved in Ann. jon and Skr. hdvanam 'an 
offering'). The transference of meaning from Idg. 'gioy-na-s 
to Lat. Faunus '(a god called) Faunus' may at first sight 

'Tbe etrliest inicnptionil evidence for theie woidt in C. I. L. I U ■• 
falloiri: Adv C. I. L. I 1007 (= F. D. Allen. Reronaati of Earljr Latin, No. 
138, where it ii included unong ' Epiuptu datins from aboal the Cracchan 
period on '), liaxi' C. I. L. I 1306, both of which are included in the"InKrip- 
lioiei a bcllo Hannibalico ad C. Caeiaiit mortem" (C. I. L. I 196-1499). 

'fcuMHi ii discusted diRerenll; by Havet, ib., p. 35. 

'For ihe/ instead of tbe normal Lat. .4 from Id^.gA, v. the note oti /Hviiiat 

It is odd that whereTer we seem to find yg/uit- 'to pour' preterred in Latin, 
II ihewi /, not M. In this conneiion ma; be mentioned the " rapprochement 
consacie de /«»* a»ec /um/g et x'"" spoken of bj L. Ha»et in M^m. de la Paris, vol. VI, p. it6. [Havet himself, however, regirdinf 
this ai "tris difficile," prefer* 10 connect /am with '•*fenda. le simpie du 
compose afftnds" \ while Bnigmann afain, Gmndr., vol. II (= IV), p. 14J3 
with iM^fatalra 'window.'] 

.y Google 


appetu- strange, but oone the less it seems to find an exact 
parallel in aoother derivative of this same ijg^^ 'to poor': 
I^'K- V**-*^. Ppl«' P*ss. of ^iie^ 'to pour,' meaning literally 
'poured,' whence later 'offered, sacrificed,' which becomes Skr, 
Ved. ku/d ' poured, offered, sacrificed ' [of. also I/uiasa (M. Bb., 
Nitk iv 9) fJuiaSatta (M. Bh., Nala v 37) ' the sacrifice-eater,' tbe 
Uter by-ikame of the Indian fire-god Agni], is also the ori^nal 
Ml' Goth. gnf. Mod. Eng. god, N.H.G. gcff, which apparently 
meitu '« beiog who is honoured with ofleriDgs' (passive), if we 
*«vi,>t the explanation of Bury' in Bezzenb. Beitr., vol. Vll, p 
7^^ It' this vt«w is correct, we may give roughly the followin); 
l>i<.<(>>.>ttt>.>a ll>r the meaning of LaL Fauntts : 

Skt. i»iJ- : Goth, gmf, etc = Arm.yM ; Lat. Famais. 

i,;^ ttvHii t ^*<n(- 'to call aptm.' Brugmann, Or. II, §79, p. 335 
i,V"i'»;, «\i,\ e-ipliins Goth, gm-f 'god' differently from Bury 
v*N'»r', d«fn«itig it, jJong with Skr. ku-U-* Aa-td-, AvesL xu-U- 
'^C^'\-A ui<v>n.inTv>ked.'fiom ^'gJtfif- 'to call upon'(cr. Brugtnaao, 
VU. (V, §<ii\ so thji Goch.fv-^ = 'a being who is called upon.' 
tt mif \K-i'>v t At. f-tu^ttu firom this root, the passive meaning of 
'>',< *i"l^-'»v^. hv'm which it comes, will haTe been maintained 
<u t ji t^^->o«o' 'h« who b invoked.' 

HM> ^^^. iU^irt. ■>.. t'tv I.J, 3«:>i represent an eaiiier Latin Vvw ; 
'.(hm -'.irt.' ■•"k>-*'* • :h J avm rt) = pirn: pirn, or Jraaa:/ntslrt 

^■vtig D !t^Tv:ai t* " ^* caltarU oT the I^.raol 
v^t -HI '■'I'l.-h \e buses his detrratiaD of Gk. M( fron 
h/iu(i- jt "(w ;se-" i« Dr. FcuwU ia the Canbridge 

v. -u, ■(■«,'. 'If n.-ano:. ca> oaly i« tie repreaentitivo of 
. sb ;. J,;','!, flit jfctra^ pocjiS'ri irpMMSt ld(. |i(cf- 

.i-:!.^ -ti-vnr. ii'xriLvu' tyti: accsr? 1 fiad oatf jti"- 
...^■■! t,«.N V jr., jurm*. «c i,liSx\.p.Wb, 

n,---^Mi.y ju-'iuoii ^^'oin r3,s list flf cnatples thewui( 

tl ad KiBc ud Coofc- 
f ;bm raitiet Lat. *>*u 

^d by Google 


It would have been natural, even without any definite evidence, 
to conclude that this change of Latin diphthongal ou (Ironi Idg. 
tautosyllabic ou) to au was contemporaneous with the change of 
LaL Im- (preserving Idg. o) to iv- (on the date of which v. supra, 
P- 457 )■ But evidence is not wanting. The second example 
discussed above (p. 191) furnishes us with important data, which 
Ailly bear out our conclusions. The tribe Ou/enima was not 
formed till 318 B. C. (Livy, IX 20, and cf. Allen, Remnants of 
Early Latin, 1. c), hence it is obvious that this Latin ou had not 
soSered chaise by 318 B. C. At the same time, that it had 
sulkred change some time before the middle of the second 
century B. C. is proved by the proper name Aufidius, which 
(obviously based on and therefore formed later than the river- 
name Aujidus, which itself comes from earlier *Oufidus) occurs on 
coins as early as 154 B, C. (circa), e. g. M. Auf{(d!ixa) ^Ki(ticus) 
and M. y4a/(idius), C. I. L. I 321. We can thus prove that the 
change of this Latin diphthong ou (representing Idg. tautosyllabic 
on) to au took place some time between 318 B. C. and 154 B. C, 
which agrees exacdy with what was said above concerning the 
date of the change of Lat. ov- (preserving Idg. d) to dv-. 

§9. Cmtclusum; the exact statement of the Law, 

It will form a fitting conclusion to summarise the results of the 

foregoing investigation and to state precisely the Law, which it 

has been the object of this essay to establish. 
The Law which we have been discussing may be stated in the 

following terms: In the course of the third century B, C. among 

nuan, Du Idg. VocaliTSlem, pp. 190. 191, and Hobfchmann, Du Idg. Vocali., 
p. iSg. Mem rielit in regarding yam- 'to draw, gather, take, graip' as the Idg. 
root Trom vhich Latin aiuii and Greek ov^ are both to be derived, tbe ' ear' 
Ihai meamng Hriclly 'the ipaiping organ' (cf. alio Lindsay, ib., ch. IV, §31). 
Tfaii, hoTCTei, is not proTcd conduiively bj the Germanic and Balto-SIaTonic 
wordi for'ear' which are quoted by Hubschmann. 1. c, viz. Golh. atud, Lith. 
ouli.O.C.51. uche, all of which may come juit as well fioni Idg. tautoiyllabic 
11 ai from Idg. tantosyllabjc aft (cf. Bmgmann, Gr. I, §§83, 84). Bui the 
O.Iriih fonni aa 9 'ear.'dat. pl.auii, au-nate 'ear-ring,' important evidence 
Bot menlioned bj Habichmann, leem to me to lettle decisively that these 
Latin, Gemanic and Balto-SlaTOnic words contain Idg. a^y-, not i^-; for O.Ir. 
(Hi 'ear' can come only from Idg. tautosyllabic off {v. Bnigmann. Gr. t, §qS). 
■hereai Idg. laatotyllabic off could only have yielded O.Ir. iua,ei,e. g. O.Ir. 
rw^ 'ted' fiom Idg. frvi/Jhr-i (t. Brngmann, Gr, I, g8a). On Greek mr v. 
Oithoff, Hobschmann and Lindsay (1. c). 

^d by Google 


the Upper classes (but not before the b^inning of the sccood 
century B. C. among the lower classes), io consequence of vety 
open pronunciation of before u, (i) Prim. Lat. &d- (preserving 
Idg. q\ whether from Idg. sk- or from Idg. agA^- or from Idg. 
dfl*-, became rfw- ; (2) Prim. Lat. ot- (preserving Idg, ^), whrtlo 
from Idg. ^^• or (we may doubtless add) from Idg. o^!^- or from 
Idg. ojS., became av- ; and (3) the Prim. Lat. diphthong m from 
Idg. tautosylUbic dyt became the diphthong au on its way totlK 
later u 6. 

St. Jobn'* Coluoi, Cui»i«t. Efc. LIONEL HoRTON-SHITK. 

.y Google 


As a whole, our English poetry has been more deeply influenced 
by antiquity, in closer sympathy with the loftiest spirits of both 
Greece and Rome, than has perhaps any other modem national 
school. Several of our great poets — Milton, Gray, Swinburne — 
have been themselves really learned Grecians. Browning's great 
contemporary, Tennyson, called his first Arthurian idyll 'weak 
Homeric echoes,' and Tennyson has really more reminiscences 
of Homer than of Shakespeare, shows more clearly the effect of 
Virgil, or Theocritus, than even of Milton. Browoing himself 
was the son of one classical scholar — and the husband of another. 
He was lulled to sleep as a child in his father's library with the 
Greek verses of Anacreou (or rather the Anacreontics, we 
suspect). If we interpret the poem 'Development' (pp. 1002-3) 
literally, be began Greek by his eighth year, and read Homer 
through as soon as he had 'ripened somewhat/ which would 
hardly point beyond his twelfth summer. Cert^nly Browning 
as a student must have been Ailly acquainted with the best Greek 
and Roman poets in their own speech. Balaustion, however, his 
first important essay in translation, appeared in the poet's sixiieth 
jear. If we examine the whole body of his work up to that time, 
we shall find surprisingly little of direct allusion, even, to classical 
tbemes and persons. 

The explanation for thb is not altogether evident or simple. It 
is not, indeed, likely that the boy fell under the influence of any 
teacher in England, seventy years ago, who could adequately 
reveal to him the full beauty and meaning, the manifold illumi- 
nation of life and art, to be discovered in Sophocles, or Pindar, 
or Lucretius. Yet his affection for Homer, for Ovid and some 
others is unmistakable. 

' Tliii paper wu prep^Ted to be cead it ■ meeting of the Boston Browning 
Society, on Dec. 3111, 189$. It 1* fint published heie by ihe kind permission 
of that society. When not otherwise indicated, the references ire to the 
'Cambridge' edition (Hotigliton, 1S95), This volume, containing the com- 
plete poems of Mr. Browning, with note*, biogntpb)', and the etuy on Shelley, 
ii ■ remarkable piece of book-making. 

^d by Google 


But the very perfection, the rounded completeness of m 
Odyssey, or an Antigone, set their creators laither away from the 
eager, stniggling, throbbing heart of the young Browning. 
" Whal's come to perfection perishei," 

" They «re perfect — how el»e ? Ihey »h»ll never chuse : 
We are faulty — why not? we have time in itore." 

It is unnecessary to multiply citations from the poem 'OM 
Pictured in Florence' (pp. 176-8), where this thought is copiously 

Then again, though (he Greek drama could not (or would not) 
portray %ioleDt action in realistic fashion (as Horace puts it, "Let 
not Medea slay her children before the people," but behind the 
scenes), yet nearly all the ancient poets depict men and women 
acting, or at least talking. Even when a Homeric hero is utterly 
alone, he doesn't ponder in silence a complex thought, but "Thus 
he speaks — to his own stout heart" (e. g. Od. V 355)- One 
monologue in Paracelsus, moreover (pp. 19-22), perhaps excels 
in length all the soliloquies of Iliad and Odyssey combined. 
True, there is a famous monologue in the Medea itself (vss. 764- 
810), but it is in reality a thrilling dialogue between the loving 
mother and the woman scorned; and we listen, eager to know 
which will conquer and determine her action.. Moreover, the 
women of the chorus are present, and are at one point directly 
appealed to (797, ^ai)- 

In one sense Browning is objective enough, too. He did not 
merely, as the young Longfellow bade, "look into" his own 
"heart and write." Porphyria's lover (p. 286) is not young 
Browning, nor even one impulse of his given free rein, but a 
madman, of whom the poet was making an exhaustive study- 
one of the thousand hearts into whose uttermost depths he gazed, 
and found that which he recorded. Yet it is man thinking and 
feeling, the inner life and growth, that always drew his eye. 
" My stress," he says, "lay on the incidents in the development 
of a soul: little else is worth study. I, at least, always thought 
^" (P- 74)- This, from the dedicatiou of Sordelio in '63, nearly 
a quarter- century after its first appearance, is really the key to 
almost all his work. 

But that simple phrase about the "development of a soul" 
could probably not have been made intelligible at all to any of 

.y Google 


the earlier Greek poets, at least. They hardly felt, even, at least 
in regard to a living man, the dualism implied in our "body and 
soul." What failh in immortality they had grew out of their 
delight in this physical life, and was but a pale reflection of it in 
the Unknown (vide e. g. Od. XI 488-91), quite the reverse of the 
eager confidence in higher reaches of soul-life, voiced so glori- 
ously in Prospice (p. 395). It may be doubted if any Greek 
before Socrates could have understood such words about Death 

"A battU'i to fishi ere the gnetdon be gained, 
The reward of it all"— (Ibid.). 

No early Hellenic poet would have said even — 

" Grow old along with me ! 

The beil it yet to be. 

The lait of life, for which the firat wat made" (p. 383). 

It is necessary to emphasize some of these diversities. It is 
almost too hackneyed to call Browning a Gothic man, but it is 
irresistibly true. The typical Greek loved life for its own sweet 
sake, fully enjoyed it, wished it no other, only unending. Brown- 
mg, as another great Englishman has frankly confessed, could not 
have endured Heaven itself under such conditions. Struggle, 
ascent, growth, were sweet to him. To be still learning was 
better than to know. 

The very architecture of the Greeks, the level architrave, the 
stead&st columns, the completeness, simplicity and restfulness of 
the outlines, the due subordination of every detail to the general 
effect — all this wearies and cramps the true Gothic mind. (They 
were no Vandals who more than once muttered to me under Attic 
skies that the Acropolis was the eye-sore of Athens !) 

Probably most of us sympathize somewhat with this half- 
rebellion against Classicism. "Nature is Gothic, too," said a 
iearless woman the other day. Something of the turmoil and 
complexity of life, as much as possible of its discontent and 
aspiration, we crave to see echoed in our art. The strugglii^ 
spire— even Giotto's unfinished tower — uplift the soul, with the 
«ye, higher than the eagle of the Hellenic pediment ever soared. 

The clearest' evidence that Browning resisted, so to speak, the 
alien influence of Greek art is aflforded by the fragment called 
'Artemis Prologizes' (p. 337). Upon the proof he wrote: "The 
above Is nearly all retained of a tragedy I composed much against 
my endeavour, while in bed with a fever two years ago. It went 

.y Google 


farther into the story of Hippolytus and Aricia ; but when t got 
well, putting only thus much down at once, I soon forgot tbe 
remainder." The 120 or so verses are a single speech of Ariemis 
in the Euripidean manner. The best of it is a fine account of 
Hippolytos' disaster, transcribed rather freely from the messeD- 
ger's speech in the Greek play. Now, this undertaking was not 
to be in essence a mere translation at all, but would have worked 
out a feature of the myth not alluded to by Euripides — probably 
not known to him — viz. the resuscitation of the dead prince 
Hippolytos by the goddess Artemis, and his mad love for one of 
her attendant nymphs. This resuscitation, it will be noticed, is 
akin to the chief motif in Alkestis. And yet, with returning 
health, his own independent tastes asserted themselves, and this 
project was abandoned altt^ether. All this occurred abour 1841. 

In their flowing rhythm and easy construction these verses are 
much more Euripidean than some of the later attempts. But as 
his full vigor revived. Browning at twenty-nine could no longer 
remain submissive, even in forms, to the restraints of dassicisni. 
He loved the fragment — as Goethe did his but-begun Achilleid, 
for he included it in his volume of selections which best illustrated 
his own development But neither Goethe nor Browning found 
time in a long life to complete what he had begun. 

The unquestioned culmination of Mr. Browning's career is 
'The Ring and the Book.' Unless our multiplication is greatly 
at fault, that contains nearly 24,000 lines, or just about as much 
as the entire body of nineteen Greek tragedies by Euripides still 
extant. Its action might possibly have sufficed for ont, after the 
manner of the Medea. That world-famous masterpiece contains 
1400 lines; or about one-third so much as'Fifine at the Fair' 
(pp. 701-36), less verses by for than are devoted to one of Hr, 
Browning's Americans: 'Mr. Sludge the Medium' (pp. 397-41!). 
In choice of subjects, in the point of view from which he studied 
them, and in the mass and measure of treatment. Browning vas 
pre-eminently un- Greek, unclassical. 

It appears likely, then, that when Browning's own creative 
activity began in earnest, his Greek studies, almost immediately, 
seemed but far-away, t>eautiful pictures from his student-past: 
rarely coming near the fields in which he worked. 

In Pauline the speaker says: 

Had flocked like bird* Bgtin " (p. 7) ; 

.y Google 


and the first of these fleeting memories is of 

" Thai King 
Treading the purple olnlj' to his death " (ibid.) ; 

that is, the splendid tragic figure of the home-returning Aga- 
memnon. It is worth noting that to this, the earliest of his 
classical allusions, Browning returned nearly a half-century later 
for his last great essay in translation. The Jar more vivid and 
tender allusion to Andromeda, on a later page ofPauline (p. 8), 
was inspired by no classical poet — not even Ovid (who was appa- 
rently closer lo Browning's heart than almost any Greek)^but 
by an actual picture, an engraving after Caravaggio.' Pauline 
contains also one of Mr. Browning's rare allusions to Sophocles 
(p. lO): 

■■ Or I wilt read great lay* to thee— how »h«. 

The fair pale lister, went to her chill grave 

With power to love and to be loved and live." 

Cf. Soph. Ant. 819-23. There is perhaps one "weak Homeric 
echo" in Paulioe, if the lotus-eaters are glimpsed at in the lines — 

" And one isle harbored a lea-bealen ship. 
And the crew wandered in its bower* and pincked 
Its frnit* and s>*« np id' <heir hopes of home." 

But how alight is this compared with the poem of Tennyson, 
whkh &ir]y wrests the subject out of the hands of Homer poeia 

In Paracelsus, even such allusions are rarer still, despite the 
scholastic atmosphere. The remotest of myths is used once, to 
point a moral Hesiod hardly saw : 

" We get *a near — to very, very near ! 
'Tis an old tale ; Jove strikes the Titans down. 
Not when they tel aboal their mountain piling, 
But when another rock would crown the work" (p. 41). 

Then after a similar glance at the tale of Phaethon (p. 43)— 
probably once more betraying Ovid as the source of the remero- 
hiuce — the muttering dreamer dismisses the thought in the 
words, " all old tales ! " (ibid.). 

The name of Apollo occurs with curious persistency on the pages 
of Sordelh, but it seems to be but part of the hero's own half- 

'G. W. Cooke, Browning Guide-book, p. 3B8 ; cf. Ovid, Met. IV 671-$. 

Digitized by Google 


morbid passion for supremacy id his art. The definite echoes we 
can detect are apt to be after Ovid, or Horace, e. g.: 

" Apollo, leemed it now, peirene had throwD 
QuWer and bow awaj, the Ijie alone 
Sufficed" (p. 89). 

Cf. Horace, O. H ro. 17-20. 

But these are mere faint figures of speech at best. With hov 
different a hand does Mr. Browning sketch in his mediaeval 
detail, though he does declare that it "was purposely of no more 
importance than a background requires" (p. 74). 

" Majr Boniface be duly damned for tbit t 
Howled lome old Ghibellin. at up he turned. 
From the wet heap of rabbiih where the^ bnmed 
Hii hoate. a little ikall with dauling teeth " (p. loi). 

Such drawing as this, or the Ordering of the Tomb at St. 
Praxed's (p. 348), could only be attained by one who had com- 
pletely and lovingly immersed himself in the very spirit of that 
alien age. To most of us the Hellas of the 5th or 4th century it 
infinitely nearer and more intelligible than the Lombardy of 
Eccelino Roniano and Azzo of Este. If it be asked whether 
Browning in bis prime ever depicted that Hellenic life, you will 
probably mention Clean (r855, pp. 358-61). But not even Clcoo 
himself— much less his friend the tyrant — is drawn fi-om life. The 
color, the background, is vivid and beautiftil, but cannot be local- 
ized anywhere. The all -accomplished Cieon, who shapes epics 
and folksong, sculptures the sun-god and paints the Stoa, writes 
inventively on music and destructively on psychology, even if 
Greek at all, is so utterly a character of the Decadence that he 
seems almost nearer to Michael Angelo than to Phidias. The 
main lesson of the poem, if I grasp its meaning, is that every 
thoughtful pagan was a bewildered pessimist: and this doctrine 
(which I am most reluctant to accept) is enforced with arguments 
as modem as they are subtle, in a style no Greek ever wrote, or 
could have understood. 

Balaustion's Adventure appeared, as we said, in the poet's 
sixtieth year. It includes a paraphrase, often interrupted, of 
nearly the entire Alkestis. The metre is blank verse throughout 
Four years later he printed a second Adventure of Balaustion, 
called Aristophanes' Apology, in which the Euripidean tr^edy, 
Heracles Mad, is recited in an episode by the Rbodian girl, but 

.y Google 


without iQterniption. The choral odes are, moreover, rhymed. 
Finally, two years later still, the Agamemaon of Aeschylos, 
coinaianded, he says (p. 831), by Thomas Carlyle, was published 
as a traoslatioii pure and simple, with merely a brief prose preface 
in which be claims the merit of absolute literalness. 

These are our chief landmarks, and they clearly show that it 
was only very gradually and, as it were, accidentally that Mr. 
Browning became a translator, even in his old age. It is difficult 
to imagine him assuming patiently and for long periods the 
attitude of a merely passive interpreter, as Longfellow did so 
contentedly till all the hundred cantos of the Commedia were 
&ithfiilly Englished, line for line. As a matter of fact, the 
Alkestis version is but part — indeed, hardly a third in total 
amount — of an eager, subtle and &r-reachtng ailment, a far 
deeper psychological study than Euripides ever dreamed of! 
The second poem, 'Aristophanes' Apology,' is four times as long 
as any extant Greek tragedy. 

It was not strange that Browning was attracted lo Euripides, 
and felt him to be among all the great ancient poets the most 
modem, or, as Mrs. Browning had called him, 

" Euripides 
Th« human, with bis droppjogt of w>m t«an." 

Euripides, like Mr. Browning himself, was a bold innovator. 
Both used the dramatic form for materials, and in a spirit, which 
their conservative contemporaries angrily stigmatized as undra- 
matic. It is indeed difficult to imagine all the monologues of 
Paracelsus tolerated at full length in any theatre. So Aristoph- 
anes ridiculed Euripides, particularly (Ran. passim, especially vss. 
1182-1247), '■>'' bis long prologues and messengers' descriptions. 
. Still, the Greek poet is almost always, at least, describing 
actions, not merely emotions. Balaustion— that is, Mr. Browning 
— constantly interrupts the speakers in the Alkestis, and chiefly 
to tell, sometimes at great length, what they are thinking about. 
For instance (pp. 618-19), W the slave who has entertained 
Heracles with such ill grace, seoenly (extra-Euripidean) lines are 
devoted, in order to make clear why his shallow mind misliked, 
and failed to recognize, the hera 

When we chance to be in full agreement with this additional 
chorus, as we may call it, it is thoroughly enjoyable. Thus for 
every word of contempt poured on the selfish and cowardly 

.y Google 


Adinetos, all thanks. Even Prof. Moulton's persuasiveness can 
make do hero of him ! On the other hand, Mr. Browning hu 
seized upon Herakles as the chief heroic figure, and has lavished 
upon him a wealth and splendor of description and eulogy that 
quite overwhelm the slight sketch in the Greek original. This 
has been very fully set fonh by Prof. Verrall in his recent book, 
' Euripides the Rationalist.' Whatever Euripides' artistic purpose 
may have been, his title itself points out decisively the truly 
central character, the heroine of the play. Heracles seems 
unmistakably a comic figure in great part His voracity and 
drunkenness help more than aught else to explain why this 
piece was performed fourth in Euripides' tetralogy, in the place 
of the regular farcical afterpiece with chorus of satyrs, of which 
the Cyclops is the only extant example. Prof Verrall, indeed, 
believes that the drama as a whole was chiefly planned to destroy 
all belief in the death and resurrection of Alkestis. He thinks 
every intelligent listener perceived, if he did not share, the poet's 
belief that Alkestis merely swooned from nervousness under the 
delusion of a doom appointed her, and that Heracles found her 
recovering as naturally as Juliet. 

Prof. Verrall's ingenious argument will hardly convince those 
who, despite all the incongruities and distressing silences of the 
little play, have learned, with Milton, to love the heroic wife and 
mother. That we all wish the drama somewhat other, or more, 
than it is may be frankly confessed. Above all, no one would 
grudge Admetos a scene in which he should be reluctantly con- 
vinced by his queen that it is as clearly his duty to live for hb 
people as it is her privilege to die for him. We are unable to 
"supply it irom the context" or calmly take it for granted as 

On the whole. Browning (who is Balaustion) perhaps holds -a 
brief for Euripides as compared with his two less-criticised 
brethren. Still, he not only goes on, nominally under the Greek 
poet's inspiration, to sketch out at the close (pp. 625-7} bis own 
radically different treatment of the theme, in which Alkestis 
' drives the hard but irrevocable bargain with Apollo beforehand, 
without her husband's knowledge ; but both here and once before 
(p. 6t6, when the chorus fails to show Admetos and his father 
that they are both alike ignoble) it is confessed that Sophocles 
would have guided the action more worthily. 

It may be mentioned here that very near the end of his life 
Mr. Browning composed a sort of Prologue in Heaven for the 

.y Google 


Aikestis : a dialogue between Apollo and the Fates. The Greek 
element in this poem is not large. 

To sum up, then: Mr. Browning's keen, alert critical powers 
have thrown many a brilliant crosa-light on this perplexing little 
drama — his descriptions of Death, of Heracles, and other pass- 
ages are splendid creative poetry in themselves — but it is impos- 
sible to accept his version of the Greek play as a finality. Indeed 
bis own preference would doubtless have been to arouse and 
interest rather than to satisfy a passive circle of disciples. He 
tells us so plainly (p. 625), taking bis own place among— 

■' poets, the one royil race 
That ever was, or will be. in this world [ 
They give no gift that bounds ittetf and ends 
I' the giving and the taking." 

He bids us all — 

"share the poet's privilege, 
Bring forth new good, new beauty, from the old." 

There are many little wilfulnesses of expression, largely due to 
an intermittent stru^le for absolute literalness ; e. g. the first 
three Greek words, 'O JUpsT' 'Kb^tC are rendered (p. 605) "O 
Admeteian domes." Neither the word dtrme nor the plural form 
can be defended on English soil. Indeed there were no domes in 
Euripides' time, much less in Admetos' day. Such a method 
would make Antigone hail her kinswoman in the first verse of 
Sophocles' masterpiece : 

"O common self-sistered Ismene's head"! 

Bat Browning, happily, forgets such pedantries, for the most part, 
in the delight of a poet who is interpreting a poet. 

The favorite Browningesque forms 'o' the,' 'i' the,' etc., are not 
noticeably frequent in these versions. They are no doubt due 
largely to the overcrowding of Browning's own lines with 
weig;hted thought, and this pressure is naturally less felt in trans- 
lation. Moreover, though no chronological study of the appear- 
ance and growth of this trick in Browning's style is known to me, 
1 have always supposed that it developed not under Greek but 
Italian influence, and was an effort to emulate the tempting del, 
al. dal, etc.: "del bel paese dove il si suona." See especially the 
'Stornelli' in Fra Lippo Lippi (pp. 342-5)1 "Flower o' the 
broom," " Flower o' the clove," etc. 

.y Google 


Mr. Browoing'a transliteradon of Greek names caused much 
angry and excited discussion. Few even among prafessioiul 
scholars, in work intended only for learned readers, have ever 
gone so iax toward literalness. His endings -oi and -on. -mand 
-ai, his persistent use of k, even where c would have the same 
sound, ^ this gained few adherents — and of those few some have 
gradually back-slidden into the more ^miliar forms. ("Andio 
that number am I found, myself," as Dante's VirgD puts it !) 

Two points only I will make in passing. First, any word once 
well known and fixed in English literature escapes from the 
power of scholars to mar or to correct Aigospoiamm may be, 
perhaps, successfully taught to another generation, hut Alienai 
for Athens, never. 

And, secondly, Mr. Browning's rqection of ^, and substitution 
of u, in words like Pnyx, TituydiiUs, Aeseiyhu, etc, is a sio 
gainst the very accuracy he sought. The Greeks used at will, 
for this one vowel, two forms, quite like our V and Y. The 
simpler V only was laken over in the early Roman alphabet, and 
eventually differentiated into our V and U. In Homeric Greek 
it probably had everywhere the sound of im in moan. In Roman 
speech that value for U has remained unaltered down to tbe 
present moment. But in Greek this vowel later underwent 
exactly the same modification as in French (or as the '» with 
umlaut' in German. In order to represent this modified or 
'broken' Greek £/ accurately in transliterating Greek names— 
and for no other purpose whatsoever — the Romans borrowed 
'upsilon' a second time, with the form Y. The Greek name 
and value are still retained in various modem languages. Tbis 
'breaking' of U did not extend to the Greek diphthongs or, Aif, 
Er. Indeed, or assumed in Attic Greek, and has kept ever 
since, the original or 'unbroken' phonetic value of early Y. 

So, when Cicero transliterated eoYKYAiAHS as Tkucydides. he 
represented every sound of the Greek word with painful accuracy. 
Mr. Browning writes Tkoukudides. The k can be defended, since 
we would no longer give c the sound intended. The unlovely f* 
in the first syllable does no harm, unless it mislead any to pro- 
nounce as in tkou. But the u in the second syllable certainly 
suggests the sound oi could, or else of cud, which is much farther 
from the truth (kud') than is our ikid (or Cid). But enough 
surely of such philological quiddities t The little I had to oifer 
of carping criticism on details is intentionally disposed of thus 

.y Google 


early, that our discussion of Mr. Browning's later work may 
proceed upon larger lines. 

The criticisms, good and bad, upon his Balaustion evidently 
drove Mr. Browning to a far more exhaustive study of the entire 
field covered by Greek drama. Aristophanes' Apology (1875) is 
a remarkably learned work, which Balaustion (1S71) is not. 
Already in Fifine (1872) we find a line (p. 715 ~ Prometh. 116), 
and again a phrase (p. 734, from Prometh. 518), from Aeschylos' 
Prometheus quoted — dragged in, in good sooth — in English 
letters ! The myth followed by Euripides in his Helen (that only 
a phantom of the famous beauty was carried away by Paris and 
fought for so long) is beautifully told (p. 707) — for its own sake, 
again, rather than for any especial appropriateness — in the course 
of the same most un-Hellenlc poem.' Other similar indications 
in verse written during this Olympic period '71-75 could be 

AH "this learning is," however, as Mr. Symonds has well said 
(Academy, April 17, 1875), "lightly borne" in the Apology. It 
is indeed all built, by a great constructive and imaginative poet, 
into a grand dramatic scene. The first adventure of Balaustion, 
in the Syracusan harbor, was a beautiful invention, and the thou- 
sands of pallid-laced Athenian captives, the wreck of that glorious 
expedition which had left Athens stripped of wealth and men, 
formed a background at once tragic and historical. Infinitely 
more impressive, however, is this later dialogue, when the Long 
Walls themselves seem already tottering, and the fleet of Lysan- 
der hovers like a black shadow in the offing. This gives a bitter 
mockery to Aristophanes' words of braggadocio, when he claims 
that his comedies have led the Athenians to accept wisely the 
blessings of honorable peace (p. 650) : 

"Such wM m; purpose: it succeeds, t skjX 
Hive not we beaten KaltilcTatidu ? 
Not humbled Sparta ? Peace awaits our word. 
Hf after-counsels scarce need fear repulse. 
Atbenai, taaeht prosperity has wines, 
Cages the glad recapture. 

Demos . . . swajra and »ils 
Monarch of Hellas ! Ay, and SBge again, 
No longer jeopardizes chieftainship." 

From such dreams the awakening was to be bitter indeed I 

' Thit -turn of the Helen-nyth is traced to Steiichoioi. See Plato, Phaedr. 

.y Google 


That Mr. Browning is, in this great scene, just to Aristophanes, 
whom he hates, and only just to Euripides, whom he reveres, few 
will contend. Indeed, many untimely concessions and self-con- 
tradicting boasts are-put into the half-drunken comedian's mouth, 
which too often remind us that be who works the wires detests 
his puppet. (For those who quail at the entire dialogue, a 
briefer test of the treatment accorded to Aristophanes may be 
seen in the outline Balaustion gives of his masterpiece, the Frogs: 
Cambridge edition, p. 678, second column.) 

Still, the scene is nobly and imaginatively planned and executed. 
Let us recall it in brief outline. The tidings of Euripides' death, 
and the aged Sophocles' entrance with the command that bis own 
next chorus shall appear in mourning for his rival, have inter- 
rupted (p. 639) the festive supper with which Aristophanes and 
his crew celebrate the success of his comedy, the Thesmophori- 
azousai, wherein the great departed poet himself had been 
"monkeyed to heart's content that morning" (p. 633). Half 
sobered to regret, and half defiant, the master of the revels now 
leads his troop (p. 633) to storm the hospitable doors of Rhodian 
Balaustion and her Phocian husband, the two known even in 
Athens as Euripides' staunchest admirers. Here, deserted by 
his timid band, Aristophanes alone withstands the wondering 
eyes of — 

"Statuesque Balaustion pedeltalled 
On iDOch disapprobation " (p, 634), 

and makes defence, rather than apology, for his art. 

Perhaps it is irreverent to desire that the gifts of gods, or 
Titans, were other than they are. Else we would dare wish Mr. 
Browning had actually given us here a dramatic form, if only, as 
in ' In a Balcony.' without change of scene ; and we will add, yet 
more audaciously, something of Hellenic restraint and limitation 
would not have injured it. One of Aristophanes' speeches (pp. 
644-53) '3 longer than the whole Greek drama of Alkestis, and 
Balaustion's reply — a young matron's to a midnight reveler— 
(pp. 653-9) quite equals the entire dialogue of the same Greek 
play, apart from the choral songs. Into a really dramatic 
Apology such as is here imagined, the version of an entire Greek 
tragedy could hardly have been thrust. But at least the fine 
choral ode in the Heracles Mad, glancing at all the hero's chief 
exploits, might still have been utilized quite as effectively as is, in 
the actual poem of Mr. Browning, the beautiful fragment from 
the Kresphontes, on the blessedness of peace. 

.y Google 


Much of the whole argument in Aristophanes' Apology is so 
abstruse, so rapid, so allusive, that it needs more comment and 
elucidation than any Hellenic tragedy or Pindaric ode. Such a 
comment it must some day have, for here, in rugged verse, is 
much of the best literary criticism Greek drama has ever received. 
Thus three lines (p. 632) sum up Euripides' main purpose better 
than Mr. Verrall's heavy volume: 

"Becmnie Enripidei ihiank not to teich. 
If godt be itrong and wicked, man, iboagh weak, 
M>7 prove their match bjr willing to be £Ood." 

The action of the Athenians, in fining Phrynichos for reminding 
them in drama of their own folly and of recent loss, has waited 
twenty-four centuries for this couplet (p. 630) to give the coup de 

" Ab m^ poor people, whose prompt remedy 
Wu— fine the poet, not refonn thjitelf !" 

Yet this poem as a whole — a mine of wealth to scholars, full of 
thrilling inspiration to the poetic soul — is, I fully believe, a sealed 
book, a hopelessly bolted gate, to the avenge reader. He must 
answer "No" when Browning asks (p. 630): 

"Ma; not looks be told, 
Gettore made ipeech, and ipeech lo amp li Red 
That wordi find bloodwarmlb wbich. coldwril, they Io»e?" 

Still, the classical student may well keep the volume open upon 
his drawing-room table, with scores of the lines marked for the 
stranger's casual eye to catch upon. When was the death of the 
triumphant artist ever so nobly announced (p. 630) ? 

"'Speak good wordi!' Much misgiving faltered I. 
' Good words, the best, Bilaustion 1 He is crowned. 
Gone with his Attic ivy home to feast, 
Since Aischalos required companionship. 
Poor a libation for Euripides [ ' " 

Even the bint of Shakespeare, if it is he (p. 675), as the future 
master who shall combine all the chords of tragedy and comedy, 
is not too broad and does no violence to the probabilities. 
Indeed, Bato's Symposium culminates (323 D) in nearly the 
same thought. 

The consummate stroke of genius, in building up this plot, was 
the identification of Balaustion's husband (pp. 679-80) with that 

.y Google 


unnamed Phocian who, as Plutarch says (Lysander, §XV), saved 
helpless Athens by aptly quoting, in the angry council of her 
victors, a passage from Euripides' Electra.' This makes a mag- 
nificent response of destiny to Aristophanes' freshly- remembered 
boast Not he, but dead Euripides, through the lips of bis two 
faithful adherents, snatches for Athens the only peace and rest 
she can possibly obtain in ber utter failure and wreck. 

Of course, with all its accurate and wide-gathered leamiDi;. 
Aristophanes' Apology is not precisely a safe source of infor- 
mation on the detailed history of Attic drama. Most of Aris- 
tophanes' words are deliberately distorted from the truth as Mr. 
Browning sees iL The counter-argument is sometimes only less 
partial in the other direction. Of actual slips, or even Homeric 
nods, on Mr. Browning's part, very few have been noted; but 
(p. 676) certainly not — 

" Once and onlf once, trod ttage. 

Sang and touched Ijrre in penon, in hit youth. 

Out Sophoklei, — jrouth. beauty, dedicate 

To Thamuiii who named the Tragedy." 

That story of Sophocles' dramatic appearance is well authenti- 
cated, but no better than another, which interests me far more. 
He appeared* also in 'Nausicaa, or the Washers,' and won great 
applause by his skilful dancing and ball-play in the character of— 
Nausicaa herself! That thb also was in his beardless youth is 
more than probable. Again, p. 637, it is asserted that Euripides 
"doled out" but five satyr-dramas. Seven or eight were extant 
in Alexandrian times, and there is no reason to think he ever 
omitted the comic afterpiece, unless the Alkestis be accounted 
such an exception. 

Between the Alkestis, as encrusted in the early Balaustion poem, 
and the Heracles Mad, which the young Rhodian matron (against 
all the probabilities) now recites entire to the unwearied reveler 
before the long, sleepless night is over — the link between these 
two translations, I say, is found in these words (p. 633) : 

"The tweel and strange Alkettis, which laved me. 
. . . ends nowise, to my mind. 
In pardon of Admetos. Hearts are Tain 
To follow cheerful weaiy Herakles 

' Electra 166-7. The renderiuE is Tcry free. 
'Vide Nauck, Frag, Trag. Grace.', p. aaS. 

.y Google 


Striding awajr from the hage gmiiinde, 
Bonnd on the next new Ubor 'height o'er height 
Ever lannoanting — deslinjr'i decree!* 
Thither He help» u» : that's the story's end ! " 

For myself, I still believe Euripides natned his drama aright, 
the Alkestis. In order to create there an adequate hero, Mr. 
Browning has put into his own poem of Balaustion several 
magnificent descriptions of Heracles, digressions upon his heroism 
and his exploits — in short, an overwhelming mass of material 
which only a poet can find between the lines of Euripides' brief 
and slight melodrama. With that method of viewing the Alkestis 
be is here imperially consistent. 

The Heracles Mad, too. answers better to such an introduction 
as this than any other extant tragedy would have done; but by 
no means perfectly — thotigb Balaustion calls it "the perfect 
piece," as she begins the recital. It is, indeed, largely filled with 
the praises of Heracles. The first half, however, describing his 
return from Hades, prompt rescue of his wife and children, and 
vengeance on the murderous King Lykos, would have been more 
elective than the whole. 

When Frensy, led thither reluctant by Iris at Hero's bidding, 
comes, in the moment of his triumph, and turns the hero's hand 
against those very sons whose lives he has just saved — it is hard 
to see any sequence in such a plot. Not only are these gods 
'*strong and wicked," but the poet here as elsewhere seems 
really to have a secondary purpose, viz. to raise a doubt whether 
such gods can really exist at all. We join in Heracles' cry : 

" Who wonld pray 
To sach > goddeu? — that begrudging Zeai 
Beckuia he loved a woman, rains me, — 
Lover or Hellu, faultlcM of (be wrong!" 

If Browning felt, in Euripides' art, any such subtle double 
purp>ose— the agnostic philosopher staying the dramatist's hand 
— it would only attract the more the most subtle of all poets. 
That such casuistry is effectively dramatic, however, will hardly 
be maintained. This most powerful, perverse and perplexing 
tragedy, Heracles Mad, Mr. Browning has rendered with unflinch- 
ing literalness. Where Mr. Coleridge, in his excellent prose 
version, dilutes Heracles' line upon the ingratitude of the Thebans 
whom he had saved of old : 

.y Google 


Iia)[at di Munmr, is 7rX^, oirnm'rai'V 

into 'Do they make so light of my hard warring with the 
Minyae?," Mr. Browning gives us the coarse, rugged truth : 
"The Hinnie-mn I w»Bed,— they tpat forth thew?" 

Sometimes this very literalness in words leads the reader far 
astray, as when mention of "skipping beyond the Atlantic 
bounds " occurs in the Greek text and is echoed without comment 

The choral songs are translated in rhymed verses of various 
lengths and irregular sequences, with no attempt to preseri'e any 
Greek movement — not even the pairing of stanzas in strophe and 
antistrophe. In these rhymed passages, of course, absoluU liter- 
alness cannot be demanded, nor attained. Yet Mr. Browning, 
who in easy mastery of rhyme is perhaps the superior even of 
Riickert, often achieves the impossible. The little detail be has 
added is rarely modem or in any way un-Hellenic. Indeed, the 
minute faithfulness and self-suppression of this task must have 
been most irksome to a nature so alert and self-moved If, as 
before, he felt that Sophocles, or himself, could have carried the 
plot to a fitter issue, it is nowhere indicated, nor glanced at by a 
word. Even when the long recitation is done, Aristophanes 
himself, advocaius di<^H though he is, hardly hints at any flaw 
in "the perfect piece." 

We are, however, conscious that Mr. Browning, or his lovely 
Balaustion, holds no brief, this time, upon the whole, for Eurip- 
ides alone, but rather for the great tragic trio among whom death 
has just made all rivalry impossible; or, again, for the nobler, 
serious art, against lawlessness, obscenity, mere catering to the 
vulgar taste, as personified (not with impartial justice) in the 
greatest comic poet of all time, Aristophanes. Though the fiist 
quotation that occurs, early, in the Apology is fi'om the Euri- 
pidean Heraclidae, it is hardly approved by the speaker.' A few 
lines later a splendid figure reminds us naturally of Aeschylus' 
greatest trilogy : 

'Or didst Ihoa tigh 
Rightly with thy Makaii* 1 " After life, 
Better no lentiency thin tutbnlence ; 
Death curei the low cootenlion." Be it to I 
Yet pTOgreii meani contention, to my mind. 

P. 619. Thii leems to give the ettence of Macaria's lait words. Cf. Eurip. 
Heracl., TM. 591-4 ; but the vertion it a *ery free one I 

.y Google 


" Memories aileep, as, at (he altir foot. 
Those Furies in the Otesteian song " (p. 619). 

And presently we have the masters of tragedy all worthily 

" What hinders that we treabthis tragic theme 
As the Three taught when either woke some woe. 
— How Klataimneaira haled, what the pride 
or lokait^, wh7 Medeia clove 
Nature asunder"— < I bid,).' 

We should hardly be surprised, then, that the next essay in 
translation was froni Aeschylus. To Sophocles, as the calm, 
steadfast master of an art that seems as effortless as Raphael's, 
Mr. Browning would, it will doubtless be agreed, be naturally 
less attracted. In Aeschylus, as in Euripides, there is felt the 
fierce strife of a transitional age. He is, however, the spokesman 
of a triumphant generation, the singer of that Salaminian victory 
which, more than almost any other battle, might well seem to 
have been miraculously decided by divine interposition. Right 
is supreme, in all his dramas. Even the wild Oresteian trilogy, 
seen as a whole, ends in reconcilement and peace at last. Mr. 
Browning's Agamemnon is therefore truly but a iiagmeDt, as is 
the Prometheus play, which alone remains extant. Each is but 
the first third of a three-act drama. 

For this and many other reasons, the Heracles, not the later 
Agamemnon, seems to me Mr. Browning's completest success in 
translation. In the case of foreign poems so elaborate both in 
thought and in metrical structure as is any Greek tragedy, there 
are two widely divergent roads open to the translator. Prof, 
jebb's and Mr. Fit^erald's treatment, respectively, of the Oedi- 
pus plays will best illustrate both. Prof. Jebb, in masterly prose, 
expresses every shade of the tkoughi which close literalness or 
freer paraphrase, according as need and idiom serve, can repro- 
duce in English at all. For the metrical form we must depend 
wholly upon the Greek text, which Mr. Jebb gives us in parallel 
pages. Mr. Fitzgerald, unsurpassed master of rhythm and phrase, 
has built up a single splendid poem on the general lines of the 
Greek Oedipus tragedies, fusing the two, re-arranging, suppress- 
ing, even adding a word, a verse, an ode, whenever his artistic 

.y Google 


sense has demanded it Neither, of course, is Sophocles' very 
soul — or body. Yet each of these two translators has set apa 
high yet attainable goal — and has measurably attained it. 

Mr. Browning twice attempted, like the Colossus that be was, 
to bestride that wide divergence between the two methods. He 
undertakes to be absolutely literal — and yet to make each line 
poetical, each choral ode a rhythmic, rhymed, ornate English 
poem. Absolute success was unattainable. No language is so 
elastic as to bear that strain. The result in the Heracles is, 
however, a marvelous approach to the Greek thought, and, at 
the same time, a form which, while quite unlike the Greek, is for 
the most part poetical, graceful and natural. 

As to the Agamemnon, I wish to speak most seriously aod 
with fullest humility. There is a great deal in the Greek play 1 
never understood. A few passages I used to have irreverent 
doubts whether even the professor, even the poet himself, could 
fathom! But there realty are also a great many lines where I 
can only construe and comprehend Mr. Browning's rugged verse 
when I have the Greek before me to interpret it.' 

In other words: Aeschylus' thought, above all in this drama, 
is tenser, swifter, loftier far than Euripides' could ever be. His 
language and rhythmic movement, on the other hand, are also 
incomparably more rapid, remote and difficult than anything the 
later poet has left us. When Mr. Browning attempts to rendtf 
these most difficult Aeschylean choral songs in English verse, and 
rhymed verse, and at the same time to be ruggedly, solemnly, 
absolutely literal, the result is too often but the disjecta memirtt 
of articulate speech and connected thought 

Let us take a passage almost at random : 

" Only haTS care lest gnidge of any gods disturb 
With cloud the unsullied shine of that great force, the curb 
or Troia, struck with damp 
Beforehand in the camp! 
For envyingly is 
The maiden Aitemis 

Toward— her father*) flying hounds — this honie — 
The sacrificers of the piteoDS 
And cowering beast." 

' When this paper was first read, as a lecture before the Boston BrawninE 
Society, this last statement was heartily echoed by the best-known iclioal- 
master in America. 

.y Google 


With all reverence for the subtlest thinker and the most 
ingenious rhymer who has used our EngHsh speech, I submit 
that this is not intelligible to any English reader; it does not 
even construe (no one can parse envyingly) ; and rhymes like is 
with AriemU, house with piteous are no true ornament. The 
latter, indeed, almost rivals our gentle Emerson's bold rhyme of 
hear with — woodpecker \ In the Greek original this is a loftily 
poetical passage. The comparison of the Atridae to a pair of 
eagles, the winged hounds of Zeus (Ag, 49-54}, is one of the 
lordliest in all poetry, and must have made Pindar hail a kindred 
spirit — if he had not descried him long before — beyond the 
hostile Attic border. But — 

We must, I think, inscribe upon this powerful, and often 
splendid, piece of translation the epitaph of Phaethon (Ovid, 
Met. II 327-8). 

In any case, the Agamemnon should not be studied or read 
alone, but always with the Choephoroi and Eumenides. If the 
splendors of Morshead's 'House of Atreus' make too vivid an 
impression of horror upon the imagination, the version of Miss 
Anna Swanwick, while tamer, is at the same time closer in detail 
10 the Greek text. Mr. Moulton's recitations, which stamp so 
effectively upon our imagination the large general outlines of the 
trilogy, are based upon a very free old version, which he has 
arranged, cut and modified every way to make it rhetorically 
more effective, and which he still modifies in the same direction 
at each repetition. This is, of course, but one evidence of his 
artistic skill, which has already given a great stimulus to the 
popular interest in the masterpieces of Greek drama. 

Perhaps a word will be expected upon the poem called JVum- 
phoUptos. The tide is certainly Greek, and means, just as Mr. 
Browning says, ' rapt by a nymph' ; but beyond that there is not 
a single word in Mr. Browning's explanation, nor even in the 
poem itself, that stoops to the level of our comprehension. 
Rather than close with that humiliating confession, let us add a 
wurd upon the latest Hellenic poem of Mr. Browning. 

Phtidippides is in no sense a translation. The encounter of 
the gallant runner and the great god Pan is one of the many 
marvels with which Herodotus embroiders the story of the 
Persian wars (Herod. VI 105-6). The latter end of the tale is, 
however (as Mr. Cooke's most helpful handbook states), a 

.y Google 


modem invention, though the notion that an early heroic death 
is the gods' greatest boon is also Herodotean.' The melie of 
this poem interests me, for it appears to be Mr. Browning'i 
suggestion for a rhymed approximation to the hexameter. 

" Halt Pheidippides I — halt I did, my brain of a whirl: 

" Hither to me ! Why pale in my presence ?" he cracious begaa. 

" How i« il, — Athens only io Hellas holds me aloof?" 

These lines lack only a final syllable each to be remarkably 
perfect heroic verse. 

Let us end with a word of good omen, which the master utteied 
of bis hero, and we may say in turn of him, in all confidence and 

" So U Pheidippidet happy foreTCi, — the noble strong man." 

Mr. Browning was too noble, too strong, too fully alive, ever to 
be merely a servile translator. His great experiments in this 
field have shed a flood of light on the theory and the art of 
translation. One of these experiments, the Heracles, may loi^ 
remain the best single version in English of a masterly Greek 
drama. His original writing upon classical subjects — above all 
the Apology — is even more instructive, and deeply learned as 
well. But the creative genius of Mr. Browning himself is as 
remote as could well be from classicism. Upon the most perfect 
masterpieces of Hellenic poetry — the Odyssey, the Antigone, the 
odes of Pindar — he has hardly uttered a word. They may have 
moved him no more than the Parthenon — whether as a glorious 
ruin to-day or in all Its original splendor — would have moved the 
artist who had put his whole soul into the groined arches, the 
clustered statues, the heaven- scaling spires of a Gothic cathedral 
W. C. Lawtok. 
'Seee. g. the famous tale of Cleobisand Biton, Herod. I 31. 

.y Google 


Philological investigatioQS into the phonology of the Indo- 
European languages had at an early time connected certain 
combioations of liquids and nasals with vowels of diiferent color 
in the various dialects. The historical explanation, the 'Grund- 
fonn,' of these differentiated equivalents was given by Professor 
Bnigniann in his often-quoted article on 'Nasalis sonans' in 
Curtius' Stud., vol. 9, p. 387, in which Bnigmann tried to show 
that under certain conditions the nasal can carry the sonancy of 
the syllable, i. e. can become a vowel ; and that from this sonant 
the different vowel elements had developed. The history of the 
investigations that led to Brugmann's theory is so well given by 
Bechtel in his ' Hauptprobleme der indogennanischen Lautlehre' 
(p. 114 and ff.), that I refrain from recapitulating what can be 
conveniently found there. 

Brugmann's view was pretty generally accepted for many 
reasons, the most potent of which was unquestionably its alluring 
simplicity. Of course, nobody has denied the historical relation 
of the a, a, en, un, im, in iaidm, Uarir, centum, hund, sisimtas : it 
was the perfect equalization of these liquid and nasal diphthongs 
with the ei, ^u-diphthongs that has called forth occasional crit- 
icism. Bechtel and Joh. Schmidt have recendy taken up this 
important question again, the former in his before- mentioned 
book, the latter in his exhaustive special treatise 'Kritik der 
Sonantentheorie, eine sprachwissenschaftliche Untersuchung ' 
(Weimar, 1895). Brugmann's reply in his review (Literarisches 
Centralblatt, 1895, p. 1733 ff.) implies the open confession that 
the historical evidence is inadequate to solve the question beyond 
controversy ; he even yields the point to Joh. Schmidt by saying : 
"man kann, auch wenn man sich dutch S.'s Beweisfiiehrung ganz 
und gar nicht ueberzeugt fuehlt, ihm doch ein Stueck Weges 
entgcgenkommen, man muss es sogar vielleicht. Formen wie 
*fnUs und *ti^s, *g'rUs und 'gp'iis sind in Wirklichkat nicht 
in dem Masse verschieden, wie es auf dem Papier erscheinen 
kaniL AUe Articulationen haben in Folge der vom Sinn der 

.y Google 


Rede und voa Stimmung abhaengigea VerschiedenheiteD des 
Sprecbtempos u. dei^l. stets einen gewissen Spielraum. Nameot- 
lich gilt das fuer die Ueberruehrung der Sprechwerkzeuge aus 
der festen Stellung fuer einen Laut id die feste Stellung fiier einen 
andero. So ist es sehr gut moeglich, dass ia uridg. Zeit 'n, V 
und J, r und allerlei Zwiachenstufen zwischen diesen nebcQ 
einander gesprocben wurden, wuzu es deutliche Parallelen in dec 
modernen Dialecten giebt. Man koennte summariach z. B. 
*t'nles, *g'rUs als die Formen des langsamen Tempos>(Lemo- 
formen), *i^s, *grriis als die der lebhafteren Rede {Allegro- 
fornien) bezeichnen. Auch mag sein, dass je nach der Naiur der 
umgebendcn Consonanten ein '" sich bald leichter, bald weniger 
leicht einstellte. Das sind aber Dinge, die nicht mebr zu contro- 
lieren sind, und fuer die graphische Darstellung der idg. Gnind- 
formen, bei der begreiflicber Weise auf solche Finessen fuer 
gewoehnlicb keine Ruecksicht geuommeD werden kann, empfiehlt 
sicb n, r mebr als •», V." The two possibilities that constitute 
the point of contention in these recent discussions, viz. a complett 
reduction of the nasal diphthong to a nasal sonant, or a reduction 
of the accompanying vowel to a 'minimum of sonancy,' bad been 
clearly recognized by the author of the nasal sonant theory. He 
had, however, decided in favor of the former alternative, basing 
bis physiological explanation on Sievers' remarks that the liquids 
/, r, and the nasals fi, n, m may have the function of vowels u 
well as ofconsonants(cf. Grundzuege der Phonetik,4thed.,§i04). 

Since historical ailments can confessedly not decide between 
•« and n, etc., the solution of the problem must necessarily be left 
to physiological phonetics. Thanks to the improvements in 
phonetical instruments, we are now in a position to determine the 
nature of glides and to measure quantities which cannot be esti- 
mated acoustically and which may even be lost to perception. 
No human ear is, for instance, able to distinguish differences in 
quantities below one-tenth of a second ; experimentally we can 
measure quantities that vary by one-thousandth of a second. A 
large number of experiments made with Rousselot's apparatus 
under varied circumstances, and with the assistance of several 
persons interested, have led the writer to conclusions that 
establish the correctness of Joh, Schmidt's views. 

Before entering on physiological questions I may be allowed to 
dispose of some preliminary points. They are here stated briefly, 
as some, if not all, of them have been discussed in articles bearing 

.y Google 


on this problem. First of all, then, we have to consider the 
stipulated sonants as reductions — that is, we have to start with 
forms that show a vowel in the regular grades. Simple as this 
point may appear, with our present theory of ablaut it is never- 
theless important, as it disposes of Brugmann's nja, ^ein argu- 
ment. The n here is a deliberative intetjection, not reduced from 
any articulate form, and could never, under any kind of accent, 
develop to an en, etc 

Instances of graphic representations of vocalic consonants have 
to be guarded against as proofs for the theory. To these belong, 
for example, the cases in Gothic ; forms tike bagms, taikus, etc., 
on]y prove that the m, n were not preceded by a vowel that could 
be defined by a sound of the Gothic written alphabet. Nor do 
the quotations from modem dialects carry much weight: they 
belong, as tar as they are not acoustical deceptions, to a literary 
period and find their constant correction through the written 
form. I refer here especially to Moeller's t^Um and ii^&m^ (for 
symfilom, ientamen) in Z. f. d. Ph., vol. 25, p. 372; the two cases 
are, besides, not commensurable. 

Nasal sonants do exist, but have never been proven to appear 
in root syllables. They occur in suffixes, where they cannot 
interfere with the sense conveyed by the word. Illustrations are 
very numerous in all languages: the English material is treated 
by A. M. Bell in his 'Note on Syllabic Consonants,' read before 
the Mod. Lang. Association, Dec. 1894, In German, to quote 
only one illustration, we distinguish between the nom. and ace. of 
em Mann by means of the nasal sonant for the accusative, viz. 
'ich babe ein^ Mann gesehen.' I call attention here to the fact 
that the ^ stands after a nasal of its own kind, just as in the often- 
quoted iesffitgntf for iesotmenen. 

Let us now examine the physiological problem. One would 
suppose that the pbonetical values of the sounds that are supposed 
to have the function of vowels bad been carefiitly established. 
Tliis is by no means the case, and even scientific grammars have 
but recently begun to separate the nasals from the liquids. 
Physiologically the two categories are too different to be com- 
pared. Of the nasals m and n differ by a greater degree of 
nasality, by the different number of harmonics, and by their 
dosnres. What holds good in the case of the m need not neces- 
sarily apply also to n. Still greater is the difference between / 
and r. The latter is really a fricative vowel, the quality of which 

.y Google 


varies according to the [rface of vibratioa ; (be pitdi is isdisdiict, 
aa the fbndsunental and tbe faannoaics vary coostandy oq account 
of tbe change vii tbe resonant cavity. Tbe / has abo all tbc 
characteristics of a vovel : the size of tbc lateral c^>eiui% b here 
the distii^nisbing criterion. It readily changes into a vowel : d. 
English taik, French a»be<alba ; the Russian / stands on tbe 
dividing line. This fondamental difference has hardly ever been 
taken into account The mania (<x mathematical equations at 
one time threateoed to become tbe ready formula for nev discov- 
eries ; cfl V. Michela, Zum Wechsel des NcMninalgeschlecbts im 
Deutschen, p. 14, and Thumeysen, Das Neutrum iro Romao- 
ischeu, p. 36. 

On account of these different articulations all combinations of 
explosives and nasals, and some combinations of explosives and 
liquids, are impossible without an tnter\-ening vowel (?). I treat 
here only the cases of explosives plus nasal or liquid. 

M. With labial explosives (pm, pm) the 3 must appear after 
the explosion, else the labial becomes a nasal explosive and &lls 
together with the nasal explosive deniaL The labial would then 
be assimilated to the following nasal; cf. suStniiU>> summit''' 
O.H.G. kraian, Aram. Tbe dentals must also be followed by a 
reduced vowel, or be exploded through the nose and be lost 
With gutturals the same development must occur, unless the 
explosion is protected by an intervening 7. 

N. Preceded by a labial it may change to a labial nasal, as it 
always does when followed by a labial ; in this case we should 
have the regular assimilation. If we find it preserved, this is a 
clear sign that it is protected by the ?. Forms like Gothic Imamait 
must not mislead us : if no vowel was pronounced between the h 
and the n the O.H.G. naan might go back to this form as well as 
to the simplex. If n follows a guttural in the same syllable, the 
guttural must be lost, unless a vowel element separates tbe two 
sounds. This is a law that, on account of the many instances of 
the combination, we can prove with absolute certainty. Modern 
English furnishes the most beautiful illustration of the different 
steps taken in this development. Towards tbe end of the seven- 
teenth century the k, g before n had initially changed their artic- 
ulation to a nasal explosion, not to be distinguished acoustically 
from a ^ or ^ with a weak nasal click. About the middle of the 
following century the gutturals were dropped (c£ the writer's 
article in Mod. Lang. Notes, 1888, p. 63 ff. and p. 96). Modem 

.y Google 


German has a slight tendency in the same direction ; cf. iitade 
for gnade, etc.; word3 like g^^ug, Genuss are protected by the 
following dark vowel. Latin furnishes another series of examples, 
whose strict conformity to the just-mentioned law leaves no doubt 
about the exactness with which the ever ready trap of the nasal 
sonant responds to the slightest touch. Navus, narus, nosco, 
naius are the only possible resultants of a suppressed reduced 
vowel: the retention of the guttural in ignavm,ignarus, cognosco, 
agnatus is due to a different syllabication, in spite of the testi- 
mony of Terentianus Maurus, Dositheus and others. The 
instances of A), dn can be dismissed without further comment. 

L. In connection with labials the fortis will tend to preserve 
the » ; the lenis, pronounced with less force, may allow the tongue 
to obstruct the air-passage during the ^-contact. Latin poplus^ 
pefmlus, siailttm — siaduium are instructive. With dentals the 
tongue will explode laterally and change the quality of the i, d, 
which may be lost ; cf. Latin latus, logui, suffix ilo>clo, etc As 
to combinations with gutturals, it may be interesting to call atten- 
tion to Webster's sound notation in his first edition of his Dic- 
tionary (1828): "clear, clean are pronounced Hear, (lean. Glory 
a pronounced dU>ry." 

R. The r, whether lingual or uvular, can be pronounced in 
any consonant combination without an intervening vowel. Of 
course, only the former concerns us here: the number of vibra- 
tions in a second is, in my case, about thirty-three. As two to 
three vibrations are sufficient to characterize the r as such, about 
one-half of the average quantity of the consonant is usually 
vocalic. In the rather distinct pronunciation of the r in Slavic 
languages I have found the on and off-glides trilled, the rest is 
vocalic. If the air-current is not strong enough the vibration will 
not appear — that is, the indistinct vowel would necessarily occur 
in unaccented syllables: this physiological fact would be in direct 
opposition to the whole sonant theory. 

The following tables, compiled from a large number of experi- 
ments, give the quantities of the indistinct vowel as compared 
with a clearly pronounced e in the same combinalions. The 
values are given in seconds, some in the third decimal; the 
bracketed numbers express the average quantities of all measure- 
ments taken. 

.y Google 


I of vowel eUmeni between explosives and nasals. 

5; 0.13; 0.06; 0.02; 0.03; 0.026; 0.044; [o-o687l. 
3.05; 0.075; 0.12; 0x75; ao75; 0.055; o-<>8; 0.03; 

0.075; 0-065; ao8; 0.05; [0.063]. 
).i ; 0.045; 0.06; 0.06; ao5; 0.075; [0.0614]. 

; 0.04; 0.045; 0.06; 0.08; 0.06; ao3; 0.036; 0.03; 

0.035 ; [0.0483]. 

0.1 ; 0.075; 0.06; 0.04; 0.051 ; 0.09; 0.01; [ao75i]. 
>.055; 0.06; [0.065]. 
>.074 ; 0^352 ; 0.07 ; [0.0627]. 
.071 : [ao905]. 
.07; [0.09]. 
09 ; [ao95]. 

0.042; [0.048]. 

■07 ; 0,03 ; 0.07 ; 0.05 ; [0.066]. 

1.09; [0.075]- 

3.09; 0.073; 0.062; [0.075]. 

ao9 ; 0.065 ! [0.0766]. 

tengih of i between explosives and nasals. 
a22; 0.19; 0.15; 0.115; 0.133; 0.12; [0.156]. 
; 0.2; 0.1; 0.15; 0.14; 0.125; 0.155; 0.14; 0.135; 
0.18; 0.14; 0.115; [0.149]. 

o.2(«?); 0.165; 0.15; [0.171]. 
L17; 0.145; 0.138; 0.139; [0.148]. 

3.26 (^?); [0.225]. 
3.22 C^?); 0.125; [0.158]. 
; 0.25 (^?); 0.21 (If); [a2o2]. 
o.3(^?); 0.13; 0.132; 0.147; [ai73]. 
;o.aiC^?}; ai55; [0.18]. 
3.21 (^?); 0.11; 0.135; [0'i5i]' 

escigations lead us to the foUowSag conclusions. The 
a syllable consisting of an explosive + short vowel-l- 
1 10 a decrease of the vowel quantity by one-halfof its 
ue approximately. If the vowel is suppressed the 
nant is lost also. Latin genu, German Knie, Englisb 

^d by Google 


hat are sufficient illustrations ; French canif and English knife 
are the lento and allegro forms respectively of Low German 
Kmf. With thb law agree also the forms quoted by Moeller 
{Z. £ d. Ph. 25, p. 372 ff.) and others in support of the sonant 
theory. The timbre of the reduced vowel is dependent on the 
quality of the surrounding consonants, and the basis of articu- 
lalion. Its quantity is much less subject to the articulation of the 
consonants preceding and following, but may vary considerably 
as loi^ as its timbre does not invade the range of the tone color 
of the a, e, i, etc. The liquids, especially /, arc more difficult to 
investigate ; as their development in reduced syllables, however, 
corresponds to that of the nasals, this fact alone is sufficient to 
invalidate the liquid sonant theory also. Long sonants and 
■tressed sonants, with the possible exception of r, must be 
discarded for the same reason. It is besides bard to imagine that 
a possible long or accented nasal sonant should develop diffi^r- 
ently, since the tone quality of the nasal does not change percep- 
tibly; the differentiation could be explained on the basis that the 
reduced vowel changes its tone color under varied stress, and 
may fall together with the normal grades. But such questions, 
as aU speculations about the ultimate reason of the vowel devel- 
opment, had better be postponed until our knowledge of the 
physiology of vowels rests on a generally acceptable foundation, 
which at present we are far from possessing, in spite of the 
discoveries of Helmboltz and his disciples. 

H. Schmidt-Wartenberg. 

.y Google 


Jndei Aaliphoatm. Componit Fkawk Lovis Van Cldt, Pb. D. (Cornell 
Studies in CUtncal FhiMaQr. No. V.) Pabliibed for the UniTenitr br 
GifiD & Co„ iS^s- 
To the enmaurimn, wliOM DMdi tbe nuken of indexes have hitbeno 
dureguded and on vho*e lighti thej hnve (omctimei tnunpled, the lada 
Anliphontnu of Dr. Van Cleef will be a welcome innovation. The leekti 
after wordi and fornu will find here what he desires, bnl for the Utiet he will 
often have to search under headings made for the benefit of the syntaclidiD : 
and it need hardlj be said that this principle of arrangemeDl is fnlif justified 
bjr the paramoanl importance of oiatoricat ifntaK OTct oratorical Tocabniaiy. 
The limitations of the second, tike its occasional eccentricities, ate largely 
coDditioned by the theme; the restrictions imposed npon the first noM 
distinctly resall from an adherence to the standard of caltiTated Atheniin 
speech. And as this is for os the norm of comparison and basis of rcsearcli, 
such material as is here collected is valuable alike to the plodding student of 
Greek composition and to the imaeinatiTe conitmctor of grammatical theory. 

The method followed by Dr. Van Cleef is partly explained in his pteEice. 
Where no syntactical classification is necessary, the forms of nonn or veib sit 
arranged in the usual order of infiection ; otherwise this order is obsened 
only in the separate diTiiionsof each article. In the case of verbs this system 
is modified by the natural treatment of the middle and passive apart from the 
active, whereby examples of the same construction may be separated; snd 
under vv^t. II, vllttv with numerals follow* iti^lovf, apparently becaase it ii 
equivalent to the latter. Subslanlives are cited bf the nominative singulii; 
needless exceptions to this rule occur in et^oyrii (it should at least be hc>jyri^ 
Ipavov, 'Ep/uu, Mvvm. Under some substantives difierences of meaning sn 
indicated; the fact that this is done with no word after iu^ seems to stiaw 
the abandonment of a first intention which is disclaimed in the preface. If 
followed out, it might of course fairly be extended to adjectives ; and under 
°PJt4. 3, we might ask for a subdivision. The headings Apenami and Jt rtiti 
found under ayaSot, avayiauot, itaii6i might be used with other adjectives, hot, 
not being syntactical, are alti^etber annecessBir; their employment under 
itiivoc. ii', oiiroc has more justification, and here obnei might have been 
included. Verbs are usually cited by the ptesenl indicative active, whethti 
that voice occurs in Antiphon or not ; some seemingly capricious exceptioai 
to this practice appear, of which oirfouai. volafuu, ifn;^i>/uu are especially 
noticeable, since Antiphon uses active compounds of these verbs. Under 
each simple verb Dr. Van Cleef exhibits the prefixes with which it is com- 
pounded in the orator; and simple verbs not occnrring ate recorded with 
reference to the compounds which are found. The excellence of this system 

.y Google 


U Minewhat m&rred \>j too frequent eiion. Under ^fvu ve miM lh« preGxei 
(i(-, f«, itrra-, /urai-, iropa-, myi-, (wwif-, amciri. ; under ^MMu, ei(., «, i^-. /lefo-, 
ir»p(-, T(Kif-, KpoaSui', tni/i-; ^ovMia, iiri., av)i-i yiyvo/uu, iy.,iiri;Trapa.,}repu, 
my- ; yiyeuanu. tara.. fura., irpoKaTO., itpoaiuiTa, avy- ; ypi^, ovy- ; SitieiOfi, in- ; 
^, rpoa. ; i^fu. irop- ; wj/uu, irapa-; oijxifKU, >r(if>- ; 0f[JnT(i/uu, irpo-. Under 
rtiiw. TifAoii, TpixUf iTfwf. ii wrongly given for r'^- ; under dfiaprAvu we have a 
teference lo a^, under dffropu to av-, under ri^ lo ^ap-, under 6/iini/u to dir-, 
though none of theK compounds appein in the Index or in the text of BUss. 
We roiis the rimftitu anar&u, ^o&u, nlra/uu, iidla; the poit-claisiol trovrSo 
night well hi*e been omitted ; >nd the verbi d^fiiu and ^pfd^u exhibited by 
the Index do not eiilt. The propriety of citing nn-Attic fonni for >n Attic 
author is doubtful ; it would leem belter to write, like Fieuu, ^aifiii. rifiii lim. 
We read in the preface: "pauca de poiitione vocabulorum, de elisione 
Tocalinm adieci, ti qua haec cotomoda videbantnr." It wai perbapt hardly 
eecesiary or wise to touch ilightly on eliiions, which are only ■ part of the 
larger qnestion of hiatal ; and within the liiniii apparently laid down by Dr. 
Van Cleef his treatment it inconsislenl and incomplete. With ye, ii, mil, ti 
he dealt *at is factor! ly, opposing the cases of elision to those of hiatns; it 
would have been well to state the namber in each kind, as is done for one 
kind only ander rt. The observation under Si& that elision is always found 
before a vowel would have saificed for iiri aod furi (where it is needieis lo 
distingnish i<r' and r^', /ur* and iitff) and should have been made alto for nard 
and Topd, where the tubject is not mentioned, as it is also not under ofirt (for 
which I find in Aniiphon twenty-seven cases of elision against twenty-four of 
biatns) and laiAl (nine easel of elision, two of hiatui). Under aX/ii, iitii, oiTOf 
only the eli«iant are noticed ; we most supply for aVA three certain caiet of 
hiatus (III UyV l6, s% ; perhaps another in VI 4S if the conjeclnre aurd be 
admitted), for viri one (VI 33). for rtnm>, ravra ihiity-eight (omitting VI 15); 
and here three cases of elision must be added (III d 3, V 33, 3B). Confution 
is cansed by the parenthetical adnotalion under the accusative ravra of seven 
oat of the nine occurrences noticed under the heading a!r iliiimt. — The 
position of the pronoun avtoi (that is, the possible interposition of other 
words between it aod the word to which it belongs) is treated parenthetically 
with each example ; for U, iiiv, i4, oii, ti, true and the preposition* the same 
nutter is dealt with under a separate heading ; under iv the list of passages i> 
not complete. The remark lusa bet vipt icriHImr is an unscientific way of 
stating how often iftpi follows its tuhstanlive; and the phrase vtrium tHlir- 
ftmtur under rv fi 4 it not quite accurate, as the verb really divides not the 
preposition from its case, but the adjectival from the substantival dative. The 
ctassificalioni of 7F and iyuyc are made according to the varying position of 
these words. — Combinations of particles are regularly recorded \ and under i, 
tai, fuim; we find observations on crasis. It was superfluous to gather the 
examples of ix and r(, of oi, out and oiix ', here Antiphon could only follow a 
onivertal rule. — Numerals placed at the end of each article ahow how often 
the word in question occurs in Antiphon. The editor should have explained 
his way of dealing with the fragments ; we discover gradually that a fragment 
consisting of a single woid is numbered only if the word is also found in an 
oration. Dr. Van Cleef teems to differ from Blats in regarding Fr. jS as 

.y Google 


actaallj cited bj Aelian from Aotiphoa und in including ou^E^ir is well u 
vwrO^ia fTom Fr. %b. 

Id Ihe following pmuagei Dr. Vsd Cleef's irntax or his interpceuiioi 
invites criticiim. II j39 is not ui eumple of "di- — iv pro simpl. nv"; the 
Gnt hv belong* to the participiKl claase. In II }' S the vordi irrpi r^ nim- 
jiovMii belong not with airoart^^, but with rpt/iuv. It ii incorrect to cue IV 
i 3 and VI t3 as initances of the penonal ifu, which ii not found in Anti- 
phon ; they belong nnder id. In nri ievioi, II ^ 9, we have not an adjecliie 
with which }^ ii to be supplied, but a tubitantiTe.the pbraie being equinleat 
to fiyot Cm and eihibiting the sole Antiphontean iutance of circumstiotiil k'< 
c. gen. Thus for fhnof we should hxTe fn'ia ; so ltp6ii instead of irpif, for in 
all the paisages where this word occurs it is a subsCantiTC meaning cithei 
'shrine' or 'sacrifice.' lau rivo;, VI 34, is wrongly brought under mi =tnaiii, 
and the attempted classification (under mi, III 7) "post inter." is nnoieiDiBg; 
the two inlerrogatiTe cUniei are simply connected by noi'^rf. The firil 
example under noi. Ill B. also shows a connectiTC, in Ihe second the panicle 
emphasises Ihe following noun ; in neither case is there any othei ihiD 1 
fortuitous connection with /ta^i/ir ^. To speak {nai I 4 j, Tt I 3 ^) of ss 
adverb connected by re — icoi with a participial or conditional clause is to 
ignore the complete fusion of the elements in i>^ rt mI, where the connec- 
tives had ceased to be habitnally felt as such and the whole had Ihe force only 
of a simple adverb. In II ^ 3 (cited under tai III 9) we have not an eumple 
of lai fi, nor in VI 33 (under te II 3 i) an example of re — tai connecting a 
substantive with a clause ; for el ri{ = ierif involves a substantival antecedenU 
The phrase 1% Siinit vixaadat, V By = VI 5, belongs under itJic? 3, iyJuium, not 
under 1. itatiiu ; it presents the contrast to r^ Siiarv wapa^vttv in the same 
passHget. Under Hvl i c the heading " c. aliis partt. vel adn." is incorrect 
for all passages except [he last ; in the others qinc and oUd belong not to the 
protasis, but to the hypothesis. The ethical dative /uk with tait'iv and 
imiad^vat should not be put in one class with the indirect object ; and in V 11 
/HU probably depends on Che complex oiiatTjim yrvtuBru ^ wiarJjieat. In IV 
6 3 the datives /)liiv and ro6r^ depend on Jcoivoii, not on Avrof ; and in IV ) 5 
fftaad/iaiot 4/<uc ;tPV«Mu, the pronoun cannot properly be defined as the subject 
of the infinitive. In VI 43 it seems belter to connect fiaeiMuc with taniyopif* 
and to join etc Td[ eiOimaf with ^^6iv(c!, Dem.19,3 ros M rof ei^fcvut i^A**™?) ; 
different are eif ri irpay/ia uaTTfyopelt = iitfav (V II ihould be cited here as 
well as under the heading c. gen., since fAmv ^ irpay/ia) and Kanrftv*" "^ 
dra^Uuv cif n) Jixaari/pan', which is rightly treated under tif i its parallel 
with tia^tiXa cif r^u ^X^. Under /JWo 4 the remark "sc. iriormiefa'" 
should be cancelled ; ^Uovra is opposed to irapoixi/'eva, future to past. In 
I 7 i/mioyninnuv ii used absolutely. In I 31 the antecedent of oi is fcoir and 
/JXiiv is impersonal ; for a mardered person is never spoken of a* d ^uiwIkV 
(in III 7 7 it is not the murder but the failure to punish it that is defined a) 
aduiio), and the notion that murder is iat^iia <![ rnif StoCt frequently recots in 
Ihe tetralc^es; noteworthy is the use of aSuulv = iat^t I'n, which nuy 
perhaps be explained in part by the desire for brevity. Under in we nils 
V 36, which is wrongly cited under iri II i J; and bn — iarai, V 87, is probably 
•D object clause, not a causal. The parenthetical supplements nnder wltf 

.y Google 


tie wrong, ihe Gnt tiro in form (for ^ui^eorrai read povi^ccffi, for tori resd 
i>). Ihe lul in lense ; the nneipresied thought is oi6tra tic ain'ov &yu. That 
the tistement under ou V, "in> — ov pro simpl. dv icribiiar." doea not apply to 
V63 I>r. Van Cleef seen* to rect^nite by citing this paiutge correctly under 
«> C 3 ; bnl he has allowed the erroi to reniftin in citxe juxtaposition with the 
correction. In 111 y 3 and VI 34 the first oiiSl is not the conjunction, but the 
emphatic adverb. "oOrr simplex" ii an impossibility; in Fr. 19 the context 
ii tacking, elsewhere the balancing claose ij t,n affirmative one. variously 
introdnced by ravro dt, 6i, rt. In VI 4 aptgra is an adverb ; it ia rightly so 
defined jwj iwv, wrongly as a substantive under Tzpieeu 1 i ; on the other 
hand, vputev V 93 is not an adverb, but an adjective. " Tuf c. perf.," where the 
perfect is tidciij, shows a desertion of syntax for morpbology. Neither Anti- 
phon nor any other author uses uiF?rcp (= ttf) with the infinitive ; in IV d a the 
infinitives are subjects of mrd finriv tori, to be anderatood from the following 

The editor's clasiificalions, usually very minute, are not always latisfactory. 
The phrases dtfenemi and dt rtbus applied to prepositions are objectionable, 
first, because they are not syntactical divisions ; secondly, because a prepo- 
silion does not involve the notion of individuality as it involves that of place 
or of time ; and thirdly, because in this way examples of the same construction 
nay be separated without need. To say, a* is said under jofii, /oiitic, avit, 
that in the case of doable negatives the second has no negative force, is to 
regard Ihe matter from an English, not a Greek, point of view; and this is 
true alio of the definition "/loi pro inr' i/iov usarpatam." The heading "c. 
aliii negativis," /4 C and oir C, includes diversities of usage which should be 
defined ; and the definition in w C 3 might be made more precise. We read 
"tan idem fere valet ae Umarai"; but as the impersonal SwaTai is not Attic, 
why not explain by iiiertj "lOiviS; i. adi. 3. c. art." makes no contrast ; we 
shanld have "a. subst." It is jarring to find nomtn and subitaHtitnim used 
indifferently; the second should of course be preferred. The heading ^im/w 
■Oder (iri I 3 would include S. which might be treated as a subdivision ; as to 
4. that should be fused with 3, the examples showing no different shade of 
meaning. Under if IV the phrase "pron. rel. pro demonstr. usurpatum" is 
inexact, since we should rather expect Ihe relative in these passages, and 
incorrect because in most of them a simple demonstrative could not well be 
mbstitaied ; usually a connective would be required unless the demonstrative 
were to be made emphatic by asyndeton, in which case it could not be 
displaced by Ihe relative. In V 47 we might have ixp'h' W avrdv, hardly 
rofrov; in V 46 (where hdviaiatle s: 6tl h6v/ieia6ai) Ihe relative b finds its 
antecedent id the following nrirro— 6ri^^rrf>n-nvav, and in changing it to a 
demonstrative we should change the character of the sentence. The treat- 
ment of ordinary participles c. art. as substantives is open lo objection ; cf. 
l^'-a II I a, <n> I J i. J, il/d 6, in which last place we read: "part, liv c. art. 
pro subil. pos." Of the examples adduced, II a 6 fjpoc fii« ivruv alone shows 
a participle ctyslalliied into a substantive ; in ruv iaofiivuv, V 6, the verbal 
force is 10 disiinclly to be felt that we are not justified in regardiog Ibis as 
other than a vrrtal substantive — ihat is. a participle pure and simple — while in 
the other passages it is not ibe participle that could be turned into a substan- 

.y Google 


t»e, bat the whole phnse, participle with prepoiitlonil cUu*e, which bu tbe 
Talne not of > (abttantiTC, bat of a pure participle or adjective. (Id rd it 
liHihf It' Arra the verbal quality is brought out *haiplj by the adverb, which 
doet not belong to the adjective, as Dr. Van Cleef would have it, i. v. hi.) 
The treatment of ivrur in rar /taXijjv hi ^^ irruv as participle under /li'Ji II 

3 ^ tuggetlt a fluctuation of theories. Under /u} I J J we read : " inf. sine art 
pro «nbtt. )>m. verbl lubi. est"; but the infinitive is used ai 5nb)ect not in 
place of a tubitaotive, but became it ii the lubEtantive of the verb. Hcrt 
exactneis demands (hat the use of infinitive with subject -accusative as snlijcct 
(as in II fi S) be distinguished from the simple infinitive ; and in III ^ 4 the 
infinitive is not appositive. but object, ohStlf av U)vf inrei^itrm being eqniva. 
lent to ovK on iiavifirSa apuelaSai. Clasiificalion / of irepi. "c. verbo fiwi," 
would apply equally to II <t 9 cited jnit above, where Townrria is subject, trrpi 
TTf riSai/uniof predicate ; and ttpl iroXAoS elvai might perhaps better be cistsed 
with irepi iroAAini woiciaOai, aniesa (he relation of the prepositional pbraie u 
object and predicate be distinctly defined. The pluperfect hr^pxto, V 58, ii 
clearly passive = luiaptam erat; on the other hand, how does Dr. Van Clecf 
distinguish between the passive triiStaBai, V 94, and the middle voice to whicb 
all olhei instances of this form are referred? It would have been betierto 
distinguish the substantival from the adjectival use of nof than lo write under 

4 i" loco pron. po»." 

Some minor slips and omissioni may be noted briefly. Of headings whicb 
are omitted the following seem not unimportant: dfiov c. ace. et inf., I u: 
0i&Zoiiai I. med. i. pass.; fiyvixma 3 c. part, ad subi. leferendo (as under ii;'^ 
3) ; Ji6kij c. gen. rei, VI 9 ; hruuiXiu pass. c. t>c, III ^ 9 ; Karayiyviiaiiu pass. c. 
gen., V 70; Ktifiai 4. c. ace. et inf.; tiipioiuu i. c. inf. 3. c. part. 3- c. gen.; 
iirurrof a. c, inf.; ilf I adv. Under lU/u 6 we read: "ciir vel if"; bat 
the examples show only uf. Passages are sometimes quoted under the wroif 
heading; so under Sii7^ 3 and bnut 1, the last two examples; tviara^i ;.V 
83; trtpoi Ii,V36; inawif.VI 46,48; ^bUo B,lhe cases where /mAIbu qnalifiet 
11x6^. The vocatives npirnl and laipiot should end their respective articles; 
favrpof yivi/iivo^ is not an example of that adjective " c. part." It is incorrect 
to separate a/mpriwHv.Tapoii'tiip ciffrom an^tiv c\s; and under Iv real confiisioD 
exists, since many of the eiamples toward the end of i belong under t. 
Responsibility for the following mistakes is in part shared by the printer: 
oivcu, c^- (read in.); AUof, riiia, elsewhere tHJjx. itt accordance with Blus; 
aiMi,3oeu; "dwideiicmyu, dwid^fai, Ft. 47" shonld read '• avaSixofw, avB^i-ai," ti 
Dr. Van Cleef knows, since he refers to ava. under dijfo/uu, not under fiiinvfu ; 
ipitlfioi ■ t6tc /lif — riri ^, p. 35 ; Sv/iht/iai. with false references to h-. "*»•■ 
Under re II 4 iot guattuor read qidnqtir. Continenta, p. $i,cenditumibia,f.fn, 
utremqut, p. 8z, are distressing misprints ; etK6^ should not be translated by a 
masculine; the distinction made, under >^, between terra and tillm is filse: 
the phrase "de eo cuius causa agitur" under ini 1 4 is at least ambignooi. 
Finally, while the quotations usually eihibit, as they are intended to do, the 
conslTucIion or relation of the words, this is occasionally obscured or falsified 
by misleading omissions or insertions. 

The preface assures us that the citations have been most carelnlly verified : 
"maxima diligeniia," says Dr. Van Cleef sadly, "cal par nullum praetaian 

, Google 


bene icio me umquam ■deptnrum." If ■ good conscience \% not a tuflicient 
leward, the editor ma; reflect that the indexes of similar cbaiacler which he 
hopei to publish Uter will be all the more warmly welcomed by scholars and 
stadenti, who will truit to lind ia ihem the same accuracy combined with a 
Bore perfect cleameii of syntactical vision. 

Wm. Hahilton Kikk. 

Italo Pizzi: Storia della poeiia peisiana. Vol. I, II, Torino, Unions tipo- 
gra6co-editrice, 1S94. xxiv, 350 pp. and 49s pp. 8vo. Lite 10. 

"Die Po«*ie steht inr Bildung des Menichen in einer zwiefachen Betieh- 
nne: in einer der Fffrm, indem lie Wahrheit and Lebre dnich Eiokleidung 
and ihythmjschen Ansdmck der Binbildungskraft nILher zu bringen sucht, 
and in einer des Inhalli, indem sie flberall dai Erhabenste, Reinste und 
SchOnste aufsnchend, im Menscben imner das HOchsle und Geiitiette seiner 
Nalor aniueignen bemllht is(, und ihm bestindig vor Augen halt, dass er den 
■ronibei^ehenden Genius der dauemden innereit Genugthuung, das Itdische 
dem Unendlichen nachselzen ui^d im Widerstreit der Neigungen ond Pflichten 
AllesidarchSelbstbehentchunguDd Erhebung UbetdasNiedere undGemeine, 
dem Adet and der Reinheit der Gcsinnung opfern muss." With these words 
of Wilhelm Ton Humboldt I may be allowed to begin my review of the well- 
disposed work in two volumes, which Italo Pini, who is already known by 
specialists for his eiteniive studies on Persian literature, and whose excellent 
ItanslatiOD of the whole Shfthnftmeh into Italian was duly appreciated by me 
in this Jonrnal (vol. XIV, t, pp. 93-101), presents not to scholars only, but to 
a cultivated public in general, at the fruit of many years' studies. Piui has 
stidied no less than 129 poets for the purpose, and the list of the consulted 
books and MS5 given on pp. xiv-xxiv proves the extensiveness of his knowl- 
edge. The reader is attracted by the ample contents and captivated by 
elegant representing and tasteful, aesthetic judgment. Especial care was 
bestowed by the author upon the characteristic of the personalities as well as 
of the different periods of Persian litetatuie, and he generally succeeded 
excellently in this respect. 

We will try 10 enter into the particulars of the book. After an excellent 
inirodactioa. Cap. I givei a general survey of the rise, development and the 
different periods of Persian poetry, ingeniously pointing out the precursors of 
each and the relations to middle or old Persian literature ; Cap. II treats the 
lyric, Cap. Ill the mystic and sceptic poetry. Cap. IV is merely consecrated 
la the celebrated poets Saadi and Hafii, and concludes the first volume. Vol. 
II, Cap. V treats the epic poetry, Firdausi and the cyclic poets ; Cap. VI the 
'poeiis romaniesca' and the 'poeti romanzeschi,' especially Niidmi, Khusnv 
a Dtiti, Kki^a Kinii&m, AisAr, Siveghi, FattdM. These chapters, which 
five the development of the Iranian epos and its transition into the romantic 
epe* of A'liiliiii, seem to me the most brilliant parts of the book, and this is 
■M lurprising. the Persian national epos and its further romantic development 
hiihetimeof the epigons having been Pizii's favorite study from the beginning 
of bis learned career. While Cap. VII gives the moral and gnomic literature 
and its representatives, and Cap, VIII treats merely of Gdmi and his lileraiy 

.y Google 


poiitioD, Piui (riea in Cap. IX to trace rcMmbUnMS and relations between 
Persian poetry aod Italian legenda and romances of the Middle Ages. If he 
goes pethapt too far in this way. and if his asseTtinni arc somewhat ti^ed, 
this chapter remains nevertheless a Tcry ialereating and mggestive one. 

As to the disposition of this history of Fenian poetry, the introdnctiDD to 
every period of literatare is always in close connection with the poeticil 
eonmnni cations, making life and history go hand io hand with poetry, and 
thns throw light apon each other. The eKsmples of tmnsUtion, partly 
composed in the metres of tbe original, show Pitzi'i dexterity in translalii^ 
and his good taste in the choice of every single piece. 

We will at last not omit to observe that the printing i» almost alwart 
correct, the external appearance of the book tine and the price a moderate 
one. May Pjtii's work have many readers; and if these few lines can con- 
tribute to procure him luch, may he see in them the author's thanks for the 
pleasure the reading of his book has afforded to him. 

Jujk. A^rUi, 1(96. EUGKN WlLHILU. 

Iranischei Namenbach von Firdinand Jtisn. Gedruckt init Unteistfltiinf 
der KOniglichen Akademie der Wissenschaften. xxviii and %A S. 4to. 
Marburg, N. G. Elwert'sche Verlagsbuch hand lung, 1895. Preis 40 Hark. 

The present book of Iranian proper names has its origin in collections made 
by Ferdinand Justi for tbe Mke of stating biographical and genealogical 
matters, when he studied the Oriental and Occidental sources for his history 
of Iran. It gives alt Iranian proper names, from ancient down (o taodein 
times, and under every name quotes, together with proofs from tbe soorces, 
such bearers of the same as are mentioned in political and literary history. 
It forms, therefore, a proaopt^aphy until the time of tbe destruction of the 
Persian empire by Islamism. These collections, chiefly drawn from historical 
sources, were afterwards completed by extracts from geographical and literary 
encyclopedias of Oriental scholars. Iranian proper names have indeed been 
treated already several times — for example, by Pott, Brtal, Keiper, Matqoart, 
and the Parsee 1. T. Modi— but not until now were they completely collected. 
Considering tbe usefulness of such a collection, it was a very happy idea of 
Justi, who was himself belter adapted to tbe task than any one else, to hasten 
the publication of his work, which offers ao valuable materials to further 
inveatigation by giving 4490 proper names and Q450 penoni, their bearers, 
besides adding 70 pedigrees, an Iranian iconography, via. a list of 195 persons 
wliose portraits are authenticated on coins and other contemporary monu- 
ments, a list of such words as form the second word of a compound name, and 
a list of name-affixes. 

As the grammatical formation of proper names is entirely the same in 
Iranian as in Indian. Greek. German, Slavic and Celtic, the Iranian names 
have been interpreted according to the etymological principles in use for the 
proper names of tlie last-named languages. The etymological interpretation 
is added to the names when it may be considered secure, or at least very 
probable ; hypothetical interpretations are sometimes mentioned in the list of 
the words which form the second part of compound names (pp. 453-510)- 

, Google 


Boidei the Median, old, middle mdd neo-PenUn namei, Armenian namet 
tun been admitted as Tai ai the; ar« of Arucidian origin, and lilcewiie 
MTctal Huiagetic. Laiian (among (hem the pntel; Iranian Paconii) and 
ScTthic onei, to which belon|>i al»a the name AatTagei. its bearer haviog been 
■ot a Median, bnt a ScTthian nturpator. Snch names from the remoter 
drcomfereace of the Penian empire as cannot be etymological Ij explained 
with entire secnrity, bnt are lometimei of Iranian appearance, like Abdus, 
auDC of a Parthian, have likewise been admitted. 

In order to gire to this coUection of proper names, besides its HnfHUtU 
nine, also a JUstmcal one, as a sort of historical dictionary, there are likewise 
mentioned, If the opportunity presents itself, persons whose name is not a 
Fenian one. So the work contains in the atQoined pedigrees of princely and 
noble families also complete series of names which are foreign, as, for example, 
io the genealogies of the Persian dynasties after the victory of Islamism. 
AmoDg the names are tnch from legends, especially of heroes, and such from 
pcdigteei inrented by conrt-genealogists for dynastic purposes; remarks are 
teaeially added only in cases where the (alsiCcation is not at once evident. 
Josti, farthennore, recurs to sources which seem historical but are in truth 
rDfUntic or didactic, like Xenophon's Kyropaedia, or to several writings 
which, like those of Lucian, do not at all pretend to be historical. 

The lime when the bearers of the names lived is stated if posKible, especially 
their year of death, the duration of a prince's reign ; if the sources give no 
intelligence in this respect, the time is given in general, naming, for example, 
the prince under whose reign the person lived, the author refers the reader to 
the lists of princes in the book, Bnt althongh most of these lists are chrono- 
logically fixed in a satisfactory manner, still several of the secondary dynasties 
are uncertain ; for example, the series of the princes of the Fersis (p. 415), 
between the Seleucids and the Sassanids, which have become known by coins 
the lime of which cannot be ascertained. 

Jnsti quotes in a chronological order the writers from whom he gathered the 
names; ibey are of course preceded by inscriptions and other contemporary 
docaments. Besides the sources, secondary writers or compilatois are often 
quoted to conduct the reader to the sources, bnt also because later writen give 
on occasion of the name further details which the sources have noL 

On the basis of the excellent introduction I have set forth the ruling 
principles faithfully observed, as far as I can see, by Justi in the composition 
of hii book, and I have pointed out what the coosulter will find in the book 
and what he may expect from it. My jodgmenl is, that the work will be a 
(osrce of abundant knowledge to the historian as well as to the iioEuist, that 
it ii of prominent value for (he purely linguistic way of consideration as well 
as with respect to the signification of the words. For not only are many 
lianian words preserved in the proper names or used in a peculiar seme, bnt 
alia the way and the point of view in giving names appear often in a new 
l^t. The list of affixes, furthermore, which are in use for the formation of 
aanes, is a good support for the linguist in examining the correctness of 
iateipretations and in making etymologies on a broader basis than hitherto. 
la this respect I refer to Jasii's essay in the Zeitschrifl der Deutschen 
Horgcnlindischen Gesellichaft. vol. 4g, pp. 681-91, where he gives some 
•cconpanying remarks and additions to his work. 

.y Google 


Although comparative pbiloloc it foaoded on « Mild bue now, uid Txgw 
etymol^et and conEtructioat >ie no longer posiible, still the inqnirins iiU 
the way how men and nationi came to tbeir names U. [honeb b^blj' atlractire, 
connected with great difficulties. Wboaoerer baa, for example, refiected aboil 
the origin of «nr German famil]' and patronTmic name* will soon have b(M 
coDTinced that a great nnoiber of them stiU entirely lack a satiiiutDiT 
explication ; othen, when considered superficially, seem to afford a muk. 
bnt produce the lappotition that the tme relation wat qoite different, ind 
that one wai misled, judging by appeanmcc*. (See Karl Gnitaf Andreiea, 
Konkurrenzen in der ErklSmng der deatschcn Geschlechtsnamen ; Heilbiois, 
1S83 ; introd., p. iii.) It is natural, therefore, in view of the difficulties of At 
matter, that not all the interpretations of Jniti will have the approbition of 
every linguist, and Juiti himself ii very far from thinking himself infallible. 
I might name a number of etymologies which I myself cannot at all belim. 
Bnt 1 will omit to do so. as before a tmly gigantic performance like thii Me, 
it seems to me ridicnloni to display trifles. I content myself with pablidj 
thanking the author for bis monumental work, which again gives evidence of 
German diligence and learning, expressing my pleasure that Iranian pbilolog; 
is now in possession of such an excellent and useful work. 

JB>«, AfrU 15, 1196. Edqin Wilhiu. 

.y Google 

HvnjE Di Philologib. Vol. XIX. 
No. I. 

I. Pp. i-ia Philippe Fabia discniiei the qaestion whether the works of 
Ticitns were favorably received by hit colemporaries, and arrives at an affirm- 
iiive conclusioD. He admits that the favorable mention of TacJtns's works 
bf Plinj docs not prove that they were saccesiful, but he finds other reasons 
fai the belief that they were. These reasons are not new as facts, but consist 
ia a skilful nsnipulallon of facts already known. [Rather remarkable is the 
following footnote (on Ann. IV 33 Pleraque . . . parva fortJtan et levia memo* 
rats videri noo nescius sum); " Notons bien que Tacile dit vitUri et non 
timn an. II longe anx lecteurs el due auditeurs con tem pots! ns." What 
ironld vitttra an mean ?] 

1. Pp. 11-19. ''■ Couvrenr discasies the eifivSvTioi, composing the o^vMoc 
of the 'k-iAyuK iTpaictof in the myth of Er, as given in Plat. Rep. X 616 f., 
ind qnoted by Theon of Smyrna, Astron. 16. Couvrear demonstrates that 
the general af&vivTjit was not a sphere but a circular disc, possibly somewhat 
cuned on one side, and the different a^Mm were hollow disci fitting into 
each other like some of out weights. The article treats several other points. 
[It leems tnrpriting that, as he says, " Interprilei et iraducteurs ont vu des 
ifiera It oSi il n'y a que des cnrlej"; and again : " Tons les interprilei ont 
lepresent^ ce peton (afivSn}^) comme sph^rique." In reading Plato I never 
conceived it any other way than as Convrenr describes it,] 

3- Pp. ia-23. Remarks on passages of Horace and Cicero, by H. Weil. 
1) The difficulties of Ars Poetica, 251 -63, are discussed, and the seme cleared 
by punctuating 

Cum senos redderet ictus 
primiu ad eatremnm similis sibi non ita pridem, 
lardior at etc. 

The Ltxin pridm, like iti}ju, may mean 'for a long lime.' 3) In Cie. De 
Oraiore, Itl iBj, ioi pati aHaparslui read/wfta/flBHiiViu. 

4. Pp. 14-31. Critical notes, by P. Foucari, on Ariatot, Rep. Ath. XLVIII, 

i- Pp. 33-;. J. Chauvin discusses Valerius Flaccus, Argon. I 430, and 
piopoiei " celer aiftra plnmbo." 

6. Pp. 36 f. tA. Tournier critically discusses Babr. XCVIII 4, 6, 9, 13, 
17 ff. 

7- Pp. 3B-43. J. van der Vliet critically discusses six passages in Seneca, 

.y Google 

^34 4ijci.f::::dx joz'KKjiL of philology. 

t Pp.<?I. r^. TmrmwiewEndsO*. M«. nn667.678,679,709, 

O T^i. 4^--tti. Tor i^mantKRU Tii^il and the Luin itiTthu, b; Ful 

l.puii. It Bb. lon^u.imf pcncia; ifits the ■Blhor wiy : ■" Ob des edileun 

lin T>aAea =Mnilm;:iei» v luun:. t !■ £n de n itiJic. de lortir (ovt meartii d 

poormt de feailles et dc flean. Node 

The nnly fcnil U; " Une eUde u pet 

u ei de la icicikce k I'wibe di 

s b pEvcbolope de ccs Inet oo U bubwie 

c ntire. la pocriUte pediolc K 

c u> do tbU. t^ti elaborate aitide 

s tumble Beotion of Otto 
> t> det kUuUcbn 
■> Ph. E. Lecnnil 
I bi^^ahlc, OB De CltliD*dii 
r. iCT. 5rj»r EiK;A. Bteslau, 1894. j) F.C 
^; Py/ici sal^ bD, Beiiin, 1893, wd 
> F. CaBoal defcribet ud 
je to be detired tro« 
Lja^j*. I>w. u>i ai>i:t Tniwe n^s«Sioas. j) J. Kedboff 
r^-e^ vj ia-i ma: Tie Ar.^ On:»n r>;« Aar.rbua 10 Iiaew,by R.C, Jebb, 
»i «i.. Lun'ivn. xV:y. 3 !.::> bbht -.'ija > cnnat of ibe Bnt edtlion. He 
yoin-^ wit fexerj; rii.a-^ ai » he riinka cfaaase* sboald bare been mide- 
6. L. AiTra» et li U-j»ij. Cjrresnon.iaDc* inedice de GaeUnO Marini « 
[i:-]')!^ B.ancii. Rjmc. IJ^J- Minr-.oned b» L. t>ii*ni. This conespondence 
ti-'jw* tijit ipun cijis^cal LjLJi ogn:-ii» ■«* -Jte period, ud coataiiu ihe Icil 
of lome ;n*.-n^-L uoi not fouad in :ie Corpus, 7I L'Eaa. Ctttde phUoloeiqne 
[,ar H. DaiMT- Pi/i.. i59+ * mtfreJir ia«; - M, Daimy coBoall Mes sepl 
liji|{4<» i^tt'oo eoienjne Jjiis noa lY(.t;cs.' (Jue o"a-t-il apfjtiqae lescooniu- 
iani:':s t ^ lecture de 'jueli^ue ou'rajri; eleonjntaire sot job »«j«?" S) L. D. 
pjeifibe* H. J'Arbi>is de JiibjiiniIIe. EaJes jar le drmi celtiqae. Pari*. i>W- 
HeJiJmires :he j-jlhor') ibuit* to draw far^eachmg isTcmccs, bat dUtnsn 

W. Deeclte. LiteinisLhe Sthuisrammaiik (with ErllucenuigeB foe tcacheit in 
1 jeparmte tolume), Berlin, iSq3: and Karl Schmidt, LatciBacbe Scbmltraol- 
mjlilc. 9. nm^earbeitete Aud., unler Mitwirkung tod O. GchleB, Wien. 1S94. 
Duvaa Hnd:i the fonnec work too full in the treaOBant of facBa, too brief Id 
iti iyni4x and eximplea. He coniiemni Deecke'i acv teramolagr. and 
makes tome icry xasibie remarks on Ihe luelessoen of changing technical 

.y Google 


lenoinolf^. For iniUnce : " 11 n'y a pai grand mil k dire que in heria est un 
'ablalif.' mail il eit lidicnle de diie qae nous aTOii) ici affaire an Wehtrfatl" 
Hit eitimate of the ErltulernngeD ii favorable. The grammar of Schmidt, 
which the reviewer lajt he has nol examined Ihoroaghl)'. teemt to him to be 
nare jadicionlljr proportioned. 10) Anihologia Latina live poesil Latinae 
mpplementom, para prior, carmina in codicibus Kiipla rec. Al. RIese. faie. I, 
«■). altera, Lipsiae, IB94. G. Lafaye give* an account of thii work, pointing 
Ml the important improvemenli over the Gnt edition, and comparing it with 
the worlc of Baehreni. He conclndet that " il est impossible ft an Miteor de 
I'lcqnitter de la tttche avec une methode plui sflre ; c'^tiit par IJ1 que M. Riese 
devait rcprendre Tavantage wr Baehreni et il y a pleinement reuni." 11) W. 
C. Summers, A Stadfof the Argonautica of Valerius Ftaccus, Cambridge, 1894. 
G. Lafaye deicribei this worii, and subjects it to a respectful but not uniformly 
favoiable criticism. The work (76 pages) \% intended only to supplement 
those of otheri. 13) Grammatici Graeci rect^niti et apparatu critico instructi 
partis quartae volumen potlertui Oioerobosci scholia in canones vetbales et 
Sophronii eicerpta e Characis commentario continens. Rec. A, Hiigard. 
l^ipiig. 1894. Briefly described and in the main commended by H. LeMgne. 
i»| Tacitus. The Agiicola and Gerroania edited ... by A. Grotvenor Hop- 
kins, Boston, etc., 1893. Ph. Fabia describes this work and makes some 
adverse commeott. "On ne peut pai dire que M. Hopkins loit tout i fail an 
conrant des travaux relatifj & son double sujet ; cependant ses notes sont trts 
riches, en lomme, et rendront de reels services i. ceux pour qui elles sent 
laitei." 13) Selections from the Letters of [he Younger Pliny, edited by 
SaoiBel Bali Plainer, Boston, etc.. 1894. Mentioned by H. B., who says; 
"Cest an essai assei heureux, mais ce n'est pas la perfection." 14) Lexique 
del anriquit^ romainei, r^dig^ sons la direction de R. Cagnat, ... par G. 
Goyan . . . avec la collaboralion dc plusieuri el tves de t'Ecole Normale supe- 
rieme, Pari*. H. L. finds this an excellent and useful work. He points out 
% few slight defects, ij) L* litteralure Uline jusqu'aui Antonins, par Paul 
Thomii, Bruxelles. H. Bomecque, after a brief description, says : " L'ouvrage 
eti parfait dans son genre, mais ce genre n'est pas sans d^fautt." He thinks it 
mieht veil have inscribed upon it: Indocti discant et ament meminisse petili. 
16) P. Siewert, Plautus in Amphitiuone fabula quomodo exemplar Graecum 
Iiintialeril, Leipzig, 1894. Ch. Tailliatt gives a brief analysis of the contents. 
The author's erudition is vast, but his conclusions hardly convincing. 17) 
Leopold Constans, £tude lur la Ungue de Tacile, Paris, 1893. Ph. Fabia 
ptaijei this work highly, but regrets that it is not printed in more attractive 
nyle- iS) Max Neumann, Eustathios als kritische Quelle fUr den Iliaslext 
(reprint from 10th Supplementband der JahrbUcher f, classische Philologie. 
PP- ■45-340). Favorably mentioned by H. Leb^gue. Eusiathius had scarcely 
ail f resources not at our command. 19) Cornell Studies in Classical Philology. 
No. IV. The AtbenUo Consiiiution. by G. W. Boisford. 1893. A. Martin 
commends this work on the whole, but calls attention to ihe author's neglect 
of all French works on the subject. JO) Ausgewthlte TragOdien des Eurip- 
ides. %. Ipbigenie anf Tauris, erklilrt von F. G. SchOne und H. KOchly. 
4- Aufl., nene Bearbeitung von E. Bruhn, Berlin, 1S94. A. Martin pronounces 
Ikii practically a new work, and one that would he excellent but for the 

, Google 


■ ^1- .J, -r - ■,-„Ka -.f -!« XI !■« rraT-aiT B«cj<s£ ■>£ fie««t»- 

• .,1. n. H«Ti-.t«i«n C™™«-3--3, ti.; : H- lUie. ToL IL 

I-. <:. -nun -n^-Tr '.I-, fi-xna ,'« Bc=r^-o. He fisc< tlu 

A...if.-:,.flg-:a. V[[. Biad. 4. Kelt: De Ht^ «t_ G. TiA, 
("ti. E. I^ifrin^i lamnurxes ilie wo<k, w^:c}i eabnrts all tbc 
1 »..f, ,B.r,r, Kla;ine ;o tbe Mjiian god ByUs. 

-I. Jiil« Nicole detcrihei and pqblishe* the ten oC »p»J<of 
»» i'y,i-9i)|. Unfortunnelj the ttoabIe*OB«e rt. io36 i. tre 
:(4f<:d, Kliilr! .1 (ei«p[ in nJi' and »ai-rl is crciyirtten wiiitea- 
ea tli«i itiii indlcftcci a ton of ifnUcsis IxllleT than total elisios. 
lie iliii iriciir he rrfcn 10 the famous ya?rfv' ipu incident. 
I i I'^iiiiniai and ihe deitruction of Haliaitoi bf the Peniani. 
Uiltc'un. [n lliii hii-hlr iatereiline article it is shown that Hali- 

.y Google 


utM was Dot iletlrojed by the Persian*, toci that Paauniax id his refercDces 
to that event (IX 33, j ; X 35, a) was probably misled hy some work in which 
he found meDtion of the dettnictioD of H«li«fto* iD the war of Perseus {iv r^ 
IlfpaHv inXtiu^, or tomelhing of the sort) in 171. The atticle cootaios some 
reiy iote retting details. 

3. P. 115. L. Ha*et proposes a/ iw fom <w and a/ i^ for o^ (<iJ,aAi) /e in 
Plut. Trinani. 969. 

4. Pp. 116-13. Paul Tannery diicnsses the myth of ErfPlaL Rep. X G16 
BC). He shorn that the Inminoni colamo cannot be the Milky Way, and 
holds that the myth relates to the world of Ideas and that, consequently, none 
vi its phenomena are to be toueht in the Tisible world. He incidentally 
discmses the nature of the iiwo^iiiiara of triremes. 

5. Pp. 119-33. P. Fooeart ditctuses an Eleosinian insciiption which 
records two victories of two joint thorigti, one vicloiy being won nu^i^jdai;. the 
other tpirfif&ii^. The ikoregm, Vv^nq Ti/iac^ioin uid 'AvaiavSpii^ Tifiayipao, 
are ibown to have been Elensinians, and the fact is painted out that the tragic 
contest most have preceded the comic. At the former £o^oc^ tdiiacucv. at 
the latter 'Apuno^it^ hiiiaaiav. The inscription confirms the Sehol. on Ar. 
R»n. 401, who cites from Aristotle that in 406-5 aiiiiSvo Ito^t XPFVY^'" '^ 
Aunvia nif Tpayi^Sdif au juyi^jjolc. It fnrther shows that still at this date the 
titrtgei for comedy were appointed by the aichon, > fact interesting in connec- 
tion with Aristot. 'A0. iro^ LVI 3 irpdrepov ii rat nu/Uiiioit naSiant nlvrt, vvv Si 
TnTovt ol fv^Jil fipmaar, Foucart determines the very tragedy concerned and 
the year of the performance : it was the Oedipus Coloneus, produced in 401 
by the younger Sophocles. The exact date of the comedy cannot be liied. 
[The argument for the date of the tragedy seems unsound. As Sophocles 
died before the Dionysia in 406-j, he truly says, the So^ocX^ of the inscription 
moil be the grandson ; therefore, he concludes, the play must have been the 
Oed. Col. But there is nothing in the inscription to imply that the play was 
by the elder Sophocles. The occasion might very well have been one of those 
00 which the grandson won victories with plays of his own, as, for instance, 
in 396.] 

6. P. 133. Ed. Toumier proposes yrvqaiiitvoii for yiviiiaiov in Hdt. 1 108. 
llini>ijtrvr>t Tfl ytviiirmv rri. 

7. Pp. i33rS. Albert Martin publishes a collation of part of the celebrated 
MS of Iiocrates, Urbinas CXI, in the Vatican. He had already published a 
dcKripiion and history of the MS and a recension of the Paoegyricus (fasc. 
XXIV of the Bibliothique des ^coles fran^ises d'Alhines et de Rome, and 
the present article (to be continued) is devoted to the Enagoras, Helen, and 

S. Pp. 139-3S. Epignphic Notes, by J. Delamarre. I. An inscription on 
> (tone belonging to the bpof of a shrine to Zev^ Kotoi^tk, erected, like the 
Udnlal, where lightning had struck, conRnning Etym. Mag. sub voc. 'Jtv^Xiiaia. 
II. An Inscription from Lemnos of some historical importance. III. A Greek 
itiKription from Miletus relating to one Claudius Chionis, of the Roman 
enpire (prob. about A. D. 30o). 

.y Google 


9. lyijt-a. Midw} Bred F>hInke*a>i>Knptiaa ban (udent) Can- 
bo, rdsiac in r. Aisas Txrci. C f»ri4— . Lo^u. wd T. Tetliu. It 
beJc t i M 49 B. C dMida kaf ■— Oj (■ bmI ^ and ems u • nnr woid, 

la P. 13s. A. Cntnlt ■■JBtiiai t^n. ia Lacr. 11 S, Mm* beloagi M 

0», Met. U 774, ingemnit, t«1hh« 

3it>cill7 disoBci Or. Het. VIII loS-ji. 
B tat Canm in Lir. XXVll 13. 1. 
■tfiwBi in Cic Pro Arcb. IQ, and 
/miitf I iin.. ibid. i6l 

IS- Pp- I44-5S- Lati* ^*Mei (contiBned froB ml. XVII), by Paul Ujir- 
VII. maan and jhttf. \1IL nW and •>*. IX. mhA'x, X. iinuSnttu lod 
ituVin r. XL Ca^^vm^n*. XIL Ov. Met. I IS (rt«d 'fas refdeit teltu. illnc 
ft pcKiEs* el aer"). These notes Bcrit anentioo. 

16. PpL 156-76. Book Notices. I) G. FooeAres, La rie pabliqae et ptit^ 
de« Grec* el del Ro«>aiiu. Alban cootenant 88j graTarei itcc des sommMret 
et des legcodes c^licativei. I^ni, iS^ B. H. describes this work, wliick 
be finds nsefal and attracti*c, bat capable of improremeDt in some retpcdi. 

5) Eogen Pridik, De Alexaadri Uagni cpistalaram coouaercio, Berlin, tlf}- 
B. Haosioultier proDonoces this a *eiT cODScicatiaBS and osefu] work, but 
nCEestt serenl improvements, the most important being thai the letien 
sboald be classified and arranged ihiu: L Epietaphic. IL Antbentic. III. 
Doobtfal, IV. Spurious. The airangemeDt of the aathor is : I. Lellen froo 
Alexander, II. Letters to Alexander. Each of these Eronps contain* as ms^ 
sobdiTisions ■* there are classes of correspondents. The gennine, doibtfil 
and sporions letters are mixed withoat distinction. Of coatse the chinctn oF 
each letter in this respect is stated in the accompanying remarks. 3) Rheiom 
Graeci ei tecognilione Leonardi Spengel. Vol. I, pan 3. Edidit C. Hanuaer. 
Leipiig, iS^ A. Martin Gnds this vork tatisfactory in eTeiy respect, eicepl 
that, as be shows by a nomber of il last rations, the aathot's collations of MSS 
contain not a few inaccniacies. 4) Friedrich Blass, Die attische Beredun- 
kcit. Dritie Abtheilung, ersiei Abschniit. Demosthenes- Zweite KvA. 
Leipiig, lBq3. Also: Hyperidis Orationes sex cum ceteranim fragmentil 
edidil Ft. Blass. Edilio tertia. Leipiig, 18^ A. Martin coniiden Ibc 
Demosihenei, of coarse, a decided improrement on the old edition. He 
discusses Blass's view of the genoinenesi of the first oration against Aii'lo- 
geilon, and also his treatmenl of the qneilion of rhythm. He describa ibe 
Hypetidei. and highly commends both works. 5) La Revolution oligarchiqM 
des Qualre-Cenis H Atbjnes et set causes, par Horace Micheli, Gen^Te, iSg}- 
A. Martin briefly mentions this work, which shows acquainunce wiih, »nd 
ability to use, ancient sources, but betrays neglect of some lecenl works. 

6) Scholia in Aeschyli Persas tec. O. Dthnhardl, Leipiig. 1894- P- C. mskei 
brief but, on the whole, favorable mention, and notes the absence of an iudH. 

, Google 

jtEJ'oxrs. 239 

7) The Hellenics of Xenophon, book) I and II, edited with notei bjr R. W. 
BUke, Boiton, 1894. P. C. find* the ETammatiul pail of the coniineDtkry 
good, bol the put pertiiniDg to hiitorf. geography, etc., not 10 good. S) Thn- III, edited on the buii of the CluicD-Stenp edition bjr Ch. F. 
Smith, Boiton, 1394, Vety brief mention by F. C, who points ent ia the 
index (ereral wordi erToneonily called airof tipiniiva (moit of them, howcTcr, 
found only in late authon). 9) Heiodotos eiklirt von H. Stein, III. Band, 
Bach V n. VI. 5. Atiflage. Berlin. 1B94.— Sophokles erklirt »on F. W. 
Schneidevin, V. BIndchen, Elektra, IX. AaSage, beio^ von A. Nanck. 
Berlin, 1893. Favorably mentioned by P. C. 10) Velleins Paterculus, book 
II. chaplen XLI-CXXXI, edited with introduction and notei by F. E. Rock> 
wood, Boiton, etc., 1893. R. Pichon pronounce* thii an excellent ichool 
edilicm. 11) H. Tnlli Ciceronii pro T. Annio Milone ad iadices Oiatio. 
Edited for ichools and colleges by J. S. Reid. Cambridge, 1B94. R. Pichon 
find* this an excellent ichool edition, which, in certain respectG, i) also a good 
icbol arty work. He make* a few corrections. 13) C. JuUi Caesaris Commen- 
tarii cnm A. Hirtii aliommqne sapplementis ex recensione Bemardi KQbleri. 
Vol. I. Commenurii de Bello Gallico. Editio maior. Lipsiae, 1893. G. 
Simonnet gives a tolerably full diiicussion of the critical apparatus of this 
edition, which, ibongh a school-book, contains an account of the MSS. The 
reviewer regrets some omission*, and want of clearness in the method of 
presentation. Otherwise his estimate of the work seem* to be high, 13) 
FUvii Joaephi Opera edidit et apparalu critico instruzit Benedlctus Niue. 
Vol. III. Antiquitatnm Jndaicaram libri XI-XV. Berlin, 1B92. — Editio 
minor t. II 1BS8, t. Ill 1S93. A. J. gives an analysis of the critical apparatui, 
finds tome minor fanlts, but otherwise commends the work. VoU. I, II and 
rv had already appeared. The minor edition receives brief but favorable 
mention. 14) Elavil Josephi De Jndaeomm vetustate alve contra Apionem 
lib. II, editio minor, vol. V, 1889. This work of B, Niese is briefly deicribed 
by A. J. is) De bello Judaico Hbros VII edidemnt Jasla* a De'slinon et 
Benedictus Niese, Berlin, 1894. Described and commended by A. J., who 
begin* thus: "Ce qui pr^cide ^tait imprimj quand nous avons re^u ceVI*voI- 
qnl nous offre la premiire Edition critique, digne de ce nom depuii celle de 
Hawerkarop. de I'onvrage connu sous le tlire Je itUa juJaiio, conierv^ par les 
Miteur*. qui ^tabllisent Xtit netlemeni que cet ecrit fut pobli^ dn vivant de 
Vespasien." 16) Franz Cnmont, Textes et monumenl* figures relatifs aux 
myslire* de Mythra, etc.. Bmxelles, 1S94 and 1S95, B. H. describes and 
praises ihli work, and await* its completion with impatience. 17) A. Schlemm, 
De fonlibui Plutarchi commentationum de aadiendis poetis et de fottuna, 
Gattingen, 1S93. G. Rodier highly commend* the part treating of the De 
Fortuna, but finds »ome doubtful conclusions in the rest of the work, though 
others arc lonnd. iS) Scriptores pbysiognomonici Gracci et Latini, rec. Rich. 
Foersler. a voll. Leipilg, 1893. V. Friedel make* very appreciative mention 
of this work, which co«t its author more than thirty year* of severe toll. 19) 
T. Macci Plauti Asinaria, by J. H. Gray, Cambridge, 1B94. Pronounced by 
Ch. Tallliart " a very good edition equally removed from too great conjectural 
boldnes* and too prudent reserve." 30) Alfred von Gutschmld, Kleine 
Schriften. herausgegeben von Frani RQhl. T. V. Schrihen lur rOmischen 

.y Google 


t894. ; 

<^. a) I{llli;oiiE ^ 

we Ber. i PhjL m, ^ 
: iKJntice )ikL bees dw 
[be- prainieiy of Ebihi'i 
Ima L-ilin. De pnticBln^ 
:*»«. PnmmcBlliTp.T. 
BBticns. Dei fbni « ddf 
:^9l- %. Fsfais doB M 

L pnblidied. wiA co«- 
■ ' pieCB of Egrpdn 

:-i ::x:n(r36). 

amtm of Vure. Ret. 

.y Google 


9. Pp. 3i8-3t. Ph. Fabia inTe«ti£>l«« (he third nuniage of Nero. The 
discnstion ii divided into six sections, as roltows: I. The offer of Nero to 
many Antooia; her refutal and death. II. The family and lineage of Statilia 
Hessalina. III. The date of her birth ; h«r marriage with Vestinat and his 
death. IV. The date of her mairiage with Nero. V. Her treatment hj 
Nero: bis 'harem.' and marriage with 'Sabina' (the ennnch, Sporas); his 
GUlnie to honor Meisatina as he had honored Poppaea. VI. Mecsalina's 
character ; her pursuits after Neni's death ; her relations to Olho. 

la Pp. fl3a-4o. Book Notices. 1) P. Terenli Haatontimonimenos. with 
u introduction and notes by J. H. Gray. Cambridge. 1895. Ph. Fabia finds 
the commeniaiy in the main good, but otherwise does not commend the work. 
1) Antoriius Banmstark, Lncnbrationes Syro-graecae, Leipzig, 1894. F. Ca- 
mont describes this work with high praise, and points oat its Dsefulness to 
Hellenist! as well as Orientalists. He does not agree with the author in 
attribnting certain Syriac versions to Sci^as (the phyiician and priest who 
died A.D. 536). 3> Lndovico Hactnai, Omero, I'lliade, canto I, con note 
itiHane, Roma, 1894. J. Petitjean coiuiders this a good book, capable of 
slight improTement here and there. 4) Drei- and vieneitige Lingen bei 
Eoripides, von Dr. S. Reiter, Wien, 1893. (Sitnngsberichte der Kais. Akad. 
d. Wiiseosch. in Wien, Philos. Hist. Classe. Band CXXIX.) P. Masqneray 
consider! all the instances doubtful, where a long syllable corresponds to a 
trochee, and so does not accept the aalbor's conclusions. He points out that 
when in strophe and aotistrophe there is a correspondence even between a 
tribrach and trochee, a dactyl and a spondee, etc., we regularly find one of the 
two feel in a proper name. He concludes that it is a priori improbable that 
Eur. would have placed a triseme long in antithesis to a triseme dissyllabic 
fo«L Still he thinks that in the cantica for actors (who were more skilled 
than the choreatae) such correspondence may possibly be found. S) Theodor 
Eock, AnsgewBhlte KomOdicn des Aristophanes. Erstes Bindchen. Die 
Wolken, 4. Aufg. Berlin. Viettes Bindchen, Die Vt^el, 3. Anfg. Noticed 
bticfiy by A. Martin, who expresses high appreciation of the important con- 
tributions of Kock to our knowledge of Greek comedy. He regrets, however, 
thai the introductions were not more radically changed, especially in their 
tone, which is too Borid. He commends Kock's decision not to introduce the 
analysis of Zielinski. 6) Anthologia Graeca epigiammatum Palatina cum 
Planudea edidit Hugo Stadtmaeller. Vol. I. Leipiig, 1894. A. Martin 
highly praises this volume, but reserves final judgment of the whole work till 
it shall be completed. He discusses the question of the number of hands that 
worked on the Palatinus. The only objection he raises is that the author 
makes loo many coDjectUTes. tome of them not to be considered. 7) Anec- 
doti Graeca theologica cum prolegomenis. Gennadii arcbiepiscopi Constan- 
tioopolitani dial<^s Christiani cum Judaeo, sive refutatio erroris Judaic!, etc. 
E cod. Beraensi DLXXIX primum ed. et adnot. Albertus Jahnius.— Accedunt 
Analecta miscella theologica, etc., Lipsiae. 1S93. C. E. R., in a brief note, 
points out the great usefulness of this excellent work. 

No. 4. 

I. Pp. 341-14. Declension in the Attic inscriptions of the Empire, by 
Joseph Vitean. Thii article is a useful sapplement to Meisterhans. 

^d by Google 

14^ AifRSlCAif jaCRNAI. OF PaiLaLOGT. 

3. ?. 3^ fid. Tuvaicr OKBtb Bafanas, XC([a7). 

J, [*3. 155 f. Pasl Le Bietoa !!■ iiiw 1 ibe an^a r£ T iimn f 

nMrnin gi a cop^ of naotiB [™K>ith»^ b^ Aldai in 15XL 

4- iV 3^-^ BoA Sorices. 1I h. Baillr. Did 

reiiig^ s*ec !e i.-ot:om m de SC E. Egger. ^ I'liiBfe des I1 

Pari*. iSi>S. B. HaDWOBlUer bi^r iiimimiiiIi :hu mn 

point* OBt s can«)deiBble ■"^'■"■' of tBBor am. ^ J. 1 

[be laaiit the news 1. njit 11I in ' extesdni' a 

Greeli. by W. G, Hole. Bottan. [Sqa (acOMS fnm die Tmmctiads <£ the 

Am. Phil. A«ociaiian). 3) L. Pretler, Gfiediuehc Mrttulagte. viene Ail. 

beu^teilet *oa CxA RabeR. ViL L, pnt & Boiin. r994- Cfimmmdrd br 

A. MocTin. 4) Mnsict icriptarei Gtaeci, . . . ranpumt Coniiua Janus, Letpng, 

189^ Bne»r >nain(me(i bf C E. BL 5) T. X. Planti Stichna. ediicd wiik 

inrrarioctiiMi and antei bv C .4. M. Fsnadl. Cambiidse, 1893. Briefly ■<■■ 

tioned by J. Tendryo. «hii fiodi it a goad editiim. 6) Aiugewihlte Biiefc 

von M. TaUia< Ciceni. erklln *nB Friedrich Hofiosm. I. Bondciia. 6. AaL, 

beaoT^ *OD Karl L«hmaiiii. Bdiin, i3^ Highly praised in {cacnl by 

Philippe PahJB, vho reir reta che sniisian of lomc desinble fnorei. 7) E. 

Le Blaat, Sur deiis dedaouiiona altribuea 1 Qnintilien (li pp. is 410). hiii. 

rd by L. D. 3) Acta ApoKoloram iWe Lnoe ad Thto- 

iiiio phi1olopca,appaxam 1 1 ii ii 11. ii— in iil 11 in perpcWo, 

ica. anccare Friderico BLui. Gtltniigcn. iSgs. Joxpb 

xoanc of chii work, wbich he highly cooBiBeadL thoa^ 

Taalii. 9J Etsde tax la PerTg^inatio SilTue. pule 

Cabrol, Paris, 1S95. Sammariied by Joseph Viuai. 
iae wai diicOTEred in iSSs at Amio by Gunnirioi. It 
It made by 1 pious woman named Siliia to the 'Sacred 
ind ia of great importance for Ouiitian anciquitie$- 
Reroe des Remes, coomenccd in a pmioos naiDber. it 


lahach. Zum altesleo Kriegsweten, take* op two poinu 
Rril the large, oval prae-Carian ihield ducribed by 
lote explanation hai hilherto been iniiunderstood and 
e accuracy it now again vindicated, as it has beep lo 
IG by the nludy of a representation of such a ihield upon 
I by Schliemann at Mykenai. In (he lecoiid part of hii 
lire" into the uie and early disappearance of the chariot 

ilg emenda paisnges in Unoariat Nepotianns. 

IV, i>p. 3I1-30. G. F. Unger, Tages-Anfane. «»"''"' 
p beaiiiig u|>on Ihii question, and defends hil viewv 
MUlkr* llanilbuch (vol. I, tSS6), against Bil finger. who 

.y Google 


in his diiierUtion on the Mine tubject (Slaltgart, iBSi) had opposed them. 
It i> expresil; itoted, lajr* Uneer, bjr the old writen thtt the day of >4 hoars 
— that i», Ihe calendmr or ci*il daj — of the Atheniaot began at sunset, and 
that or the Roaani at midniBht. Foi certain reasons, however, direct 
evidence of the fact is by no meant as easily discovered ■* one might expect. 
The older and essential meaning of boih iiiiifM and dUi is the light of day a* 
opposed to the darkneu of ni£hl. This use of the two woidt was «o entirely 
ia the ascendant throughout the lifetime of both languige* that many 
writen never ase the secondary meaning at all, except when they cannot 
avoid it. Even in periods of several days' duration only the intervals of light 
are counted, and many of the Roman writen shut out the nights altogether 
from their caleatalions. For this reason caleodar dates — the surest evidence 
for the beginning of day — are entirely avoided by the majority of writers. 
The usage of the Greeks, aotil Ihe aathor's addition of several more in bis 
treatment of Ihe subject (Muller's Handbnch), was supported by bat a single 
example, from Homer. The Roman nsage is expressly stated by Varro, Pliny, 
CcDsoriDus and others. The Macedonian day began at sunrise. 
P. 4J. R. Marcellino emends Plotinns. 

III, 46-64. G. Wentiel, Myihographiiche Miscellen. 3. Die Oinotropeo 
bei Kallimachos, shows that white certain details of this story are doubtless 
due lo bis own invention, Ovid goes back for his authority lo Lykophron and 
to ihe Aitia of Kallimachos. A detailed review is given of the various 
lamiGcalions and contaminations of the legend with especial reference to the 
version of Ovid, 

Pp. &4.16(. 383,360; XXXVI. 519-39, 61a, 669 ; XLVIII, 6S0-91 and 734. 
If. Pettchenig emends various passages of Ammianus Harcetlinus. 

IV, 65-71. L. Bloch. Critical notes on the Homeric Hymn to Demeter. 

V. 73-83. J. SommerbrodL On the value of the Vaticanus <87H) of 
Lacian. This article seems to have been called out by a somewhat severe 
review of the author's work by Schwarli (B. P. W. 1890, No. 4t). Sommer- 
brodt attempts to vindicate the position of the Vaticanus S7 S as a MS of 
value, though he recogniies and frankly acknowledges thai anything like a 
clear-cat siaiemenl of Ihe true relationship of the Lucian MSS is at present 
impassible. He ihinks, however, thai the following are facts beyond contra- 
diction: The Vaticanus 87 9 is not free from interpolations and imperfec- 
tions. These it shares more or less with nearly all Ihe other HSS of Lucian. 
In essential points, however, it agreei wiih those MSS which are of recognized 
value. Hence it may not be overlooked in our establishment of a Lucian leit. 

VI. 84-113 and XXVtII,433-64. K. Buresch. Kritischer Brief (loCrusius) 
Ober die falschen Sibyllinen. 

Pp. 136 and 14s, J. Mthly emends Euripides. Medea 115S and 1314. 

VIII. t37-4S, J. Miller, Die Beiiehungen der Viu Apollonii des Fhilo. 
slralos lur Pythagorattage. thinks that Fhitostratos used Apollonius' Vita of 
Pythagoras in his work. 

.y Google 

AifM^arzAjf 'ZTSs^j^ :e BSZLiLZ':iT. 

X. [fl-j. C Ohi^ E^ne idc:iu "*""■■■"; iB CiraH Rate. Tk 

»ft«j;ire tilenca if inceu mas wa TK^ tr i, m ■'%——■- Cviiu b ■ 
wr.'iin'yim fid iif '^zearj b.^canr. Tcac^ at Ins -"*■■— ■ cnaoc bcpoiotel 
vir v.rh 'jtr-i.'a-n. "^na^ one pojaose in S ene^ ■ Eg iac- ^ 1 1 ^ Cara>i S, to, 
tf- V, vdi.'Ji Wfiitnaaa 'Pli:! 30.3171 irew taai^iaa 3 paK^:T ■■ endoct 
')ur :iA hai! k«ii -Jie work, nt ii:i coo^gmporarr. Cldn ■'i-i j» t&jc Hcfesippu 
«u «»;rt«i-lT iaflaancei by Cartas 9, 4. >T C iK b;a tcopftalaaaa of ibe 

XI. 156-^. M. Maaiiias. Beioage mc Gocfcic&U cMau Dazhtcr ia UtIUt 
>lT«f . iMoriniei hii ar.idc of toL jo. p. 334 £. tuiog op *.^ *"th.J LaL. the 
D^r.r.ha Cirria.i lod AemiUsi Mien. Ciotiou &im Mscer hare no ndc- 
[iCtti^enc «ila«, u tbey an all detired &o(> tiidon ud che Gn^^aiiiai. 


Pp. 171-$. R- PcppniQlIer emcodi KallmiM t. ij a>d Scnoaidet Aboti- 

("p. I7S-7- E. Gia( emeadi AUch. Sopp. 197 ff- 

Pp. 177-80. E- WendliDg a^acs fat the Greek origia of the promb 
(Herond. 3, 7S) wbich Seoeca, ApocoL 5, 74. gives as: " Ubi iDBTes femD 
roiJani ," i. e. wbeie there ii nothing to eat. 

Pp. iSo-Bl. H. Schneider. Coaieclatirnm ttias in Nanmachii Epiiooe 
Hc'lici rtagmenia. 

Pp. 183-4. W. R. Patoo. Ad lamblichi de Viu Prtfaigoric* Ubrnm. 

Pp. tB4-S. O. Edter etoendi Tac. Hist. 4, 53. 

Pp.ie6^. O.E.Schmidt. "P. BagiealiD*." This man, whom Gardthansen 
(Augustas nnd aeine Zeil. I t, lOZ) makes the lienteoaot of Antonjr, appein 
but once In Latin literature (Cic. Ep. 10. 33. 4). M has et ft^Oi Bagiimn 
ttmim (tc. Itgifntm). Schmidt iugK«t* it populi {foftlH) BagieiBB (Bagim- 
HOTum) HKdfn, which was not, he lajrs. an ancommon practice at this period 
and, moreoTcr, is suggested in (he follovinc sentence. 

Pp, 18B-9. J. Haury emends Theophanei r, [70, 14. 

Pp. iB<)-9I. M. Manilius. Gellius bei Vinceni ron Beaavais. Additional 
references 10 ihoie in his article. Phil. 4B, 5^4 ff. 

Pp. igi-3. M. Manitius. Nachtri^e zu Solin. Cp. Phil. 47. 563 IT. 

XII, 193-7. C.von Holiinger. Theokrit in Orchomenos. The foondalion 
for a luppused slay of the poet in Orchomenot is Idyll. 16, esp. 105-9 (Kicks 
and Christ). Holiinger combats this »iew, emphasizing the presence of 
Pindaric reminincencei and the fact that the piece closes with a reference lo 
the Graces. The poem ia in reality a ' Betteleedicht,' although Theokritos ii 
by no means a Prodromos or a Manuel Philes. Hence there it no prool at 
any sojourn of the poet at Orchomenos. 

.y Google 


P. 197. J. Hlhly emends Arittol. Pol. I, 3. 

XIII, 198-31 1. O. E. Schmidt, P. Ventidiat Busni, tracei the career of 
tbe raminis nmleteer-contul after the death of hii patron Cbcmt. making the 
Tciy plausible sn^estion that the well-known parody "Sabinus ille," etc. 
(after CatnlL 4), is not Veigilian, bnt a piece of political utile b? some 
nnkaown poet,directed against Ventidiot and his saddenrise to the consulship. 

P. 13a W. Kroll. Hermetica. 

XV, 331-46. F. Hanuen. Das Enkofniologische Metrnm. 
P. 146. Th. SUngl emends Bell. Afr. iS. 

XVI, 347-65. F. Polle emends several passages in Soph. Philoktetes. 

XVII, 366-75. L. Cohn gi*es an account of the MSS of Philo in Oxford 
and Puis. 

XVIII, 376-83. L. Holzapfel emendi several passagM in Plutarch. 

XIX, 384-93. K. Praechter. Skeptisches bei Lukian. The intimate 
coDLcction of some passages of Laciao with Seitai Empiricus has already 
been pointed out by Stmve and Fritische. Fiaechlei adds to the collection 
of the latler scholar several other passages from (he Hermotimos and Ihe 
Parasite, and in (hii article considers each in detail. The author opposes 
Ftitiicbc's view that Ihe skepticism of (he Hermotimos goes back to Men- 
ippos and through him to Timon of Phliua. The point of view in the Her- 
mo(imos is in reality opposed to that of the Cynic philosophy. Hence 
Piaecbtcr thinks that the ikeplicisni of Lacian comes not from Menippos, but 
from some unknown author whose date, though it cannot be fixed with - 
certainty, is not far from conte>nporaneons. 

P. 193. * R. J,' emends Atiit. Pol. Alh. 73, 35. 

XX, 194-31$. Fr. Cauer. Stndien to Theognis. Continued from Phil, so, 

P. 315. O. Crusius emenda Hetondaa, III 69. 

XXI, 316-50. H. J. Heller. Beitrlge zur Kritik und ErklAmng der 
Ticiteischen Werke. 

XXII, 351-4. P. Habel. Note on the meaning of Butramai. The tymbol 
appears twice on pontifical coins of Commodus (175 A. D.) and twice in the 
reign of Caracalla (197 A. D.'). The author opposes Borghesi's view that this 
■at a symbol of the Sodales Aagaiiales. Habe! shows thai iis presence upon 
theie coins is simply due to a misunderstanding on the part of the designer. 
He taw Ihe Bacraninm every day among the sacred nIensiU, and thought that 
be might use it to produce a new type for the reverse of the pieces in question. 
Ai such it has no symbolic value. 

XXIII, 355-60. B. Kindt. Petrontui and Lncan. It is pointed out in this 
interesting article that in his poem on the Civil War so often discussed, 
Pelronins is neither giving Lucan a lesson in the art of literary composition, 
not calling attention to the luxury of the Romans as a cause of the war. a 

, Google 


poiat *bich Lvcaa bad tli(bted : dot is he ■nemptiit£ « parodr or a ttiTOtj 
of LaciB, tboogh tnccs (rf it >re keic aad Ihetc riiible. Petroniui' diffemcc 
with Laca> ii on the csasa oT tke war whidi are recited at length in the fint 
book of the Flunalia. &« nch the poeai <A Petnmin* ii not a fragment It 
14, in &ct, ■■ apologj for Caesar writtcB bf ooe of the ahtrt OMuantK of 
Nero, a descendant of Cacsal. 

XXV, 364-74- W. M. Lindaj. On the vene-acceot of words like/oafiw 
in the poetry of the Repvbltc. In this valsable article, which contain! ■ fBlt 
lilt of enuples inm the Ii^ic and comic poeta, Lindsay amves it the 
following cooclniions: The accent /liiiAnf— that is, of a qnadri syllable hsriDj 
the fint ibiee syllables short — is snbjcct to no UmitittoDs, Of course, it ii lo 
be expected that soch wocds ifaoold be found in most cases at the beginnine of 
• trochaic or at the end of an iambic reise 01 hemistich. But while wordt 
beginning with a ««w«l often fallow, the accent fdeiUm does not rise bfm 
elision, nor from the necessities of metre, since many examples are band ia 
other parts of the verse where elision does not occnr. Cases of fatiHm,)X 
least in Flaatos. arc *eiy rare. Of 760 examples only Oo are exceptioni to 
the role fdtiSmt and a number of them are uncertain. When we take into 
consideration the instability of onr MS tradition and the rerisioos and inter- 
polations to which all the Plantine plays have been more or less snbject. we 
have a right to believe tlut the poet'* invariable rale was fdii&n. I> 
Terence the usage is so little changed as to make Spengel's note to Andrii 
903 more than donblfal. The proportion in Terence is S3 fatiUm, some of 
them uncertain, to 300 /dciHmi. The same rale is observed in the fragmealt 
of comedy and tragedy. FaelUiu does not appear to any extent aniil Phaedrai 
and Syrus. In Seneca it is still more common. 

' t^- 375~7- M- Schneider. Znr BatracbMnyomachie. 

Pp- 377-8. J. Hirschbe^. MajripiKuf in the Knights of Arislophsies 
(J75-S1). In explaining thii passage Kock says that after killing the pig. it> 
tongue was palled out, the object being to discover whether it bad meailei or 
not. The scholiast also says /urd t'o airaT^dfai. As Hirschbei^ remarks, the 
context of this passage clearly imptiei that the pig was alive at the time die 
operation was performed. Ii it expressly stated by Aristotle (H. A. S, si) and 
Rufns (Oribas. Coll. Med. 4. 3) that one method of diagnosis for measlei io 
pork was by examination of the pig's tongue while yet alive. Hirschbetg it 
told by the director of the board of inspector* of the shambles at Berlin tbit 
the process is still known and practised throngbout Germany, where 11 has the 
name of viirfin, allbough, in the interests of haraanily, it is now prevented ia 
the cities. He adds that the procesi is not due to superstition, bnt has 1 
genuine practical value, at least in caies where the disease is well advanced. 

Pp. 379-Bo. K. Zicher coulendi for Ttaneati instead lAniaoam (Arid. Ad. 
763), i. e. wnf-oaf-tl, "mit allem Nachdruck, E*"* und gar," and compares llie 
tropic meaning of pottv, 

Pp.SSo-Bi. H.KOstlin. Isagoras und Kleisthenes. Zu Herod. 5.66.&IJI. 

.y Google 

: Berliner Handschrift del AchiUeia dei 

XXVI, 3BS-403. K. Tampel. Die Muachel dei Aphrodite. With plate. 
iBtbit interesting article it i) (hown that the 'ihell of Aphrodite' about which 
there has been 10 much discnision in the pait is without doubt the Nautilui. 
The leitimonji of Archaeology is to the effect that the cult originated with the 
leaTariTig folk of Troizen, and thence probabl]' spread to the northward. It IJ 
dcmonitrated that in her association with the Nautilui we haTe still another 
proof that Aphrodite ia not of Oriental origio. Bat why was the Nautilns a 
■jmbol of the goddess of love and beautjr? TUmpel's Tcry plausible expla- 
nation ii, in brief, as follows : 

As patroD of the Ttoiseniana Aphrodite was essentiall]' a goddess of the sea 
and patron of a people who were par tittlltTui sailors. Her temples were 
Bioallj set on headlands and other conspicnons sites. It was an ancient 
belief that before rongh weather the Nautilas set his sails, but in fair weather 
fnrled them and resorted to hii paddles. Hence these sailors of old looked 
npon him, as our sailors do upon ' Mother Carey's Chickens.' ms portending 
hir weather or foul, and therefore naturally connected him with their patron- 
goddess. From this point of view the numerous representations of the 
Naatilni io ancient art, the figures of it used as amnlels, etc., are readily 

XXVII, 403-11. L. Erhardt Ilias B. An eiamination of the constmction 
of ihe book. The contradictions in the first half are not due, the author 
thinks, to the unskilful patchwork of later times. The order of exposition 
was choKD in the iitit place for its effect upon the hearers. The catali^e of 
ships is a later addition. Nestor's speech (361 ff.) was designed a* a transition 

XXIX, 465-73. L. Bornemann. Critical and exegetical notes on Pindar's 
6th Pjihian Ode. 

XXX, 474-S3. E. Rohde, Die Abfassungizeit des Platonischen Theaetet, 
again takes up the questions argued in vol. jo, p. i ff., and reiterates his former 

P. 4S3- Th. Stangl emends Boethius, Cons. Phil. Sj, 9t. 
XXX1.4S4-SS. C. Wernicke. Miscellanea Critica. 

XXXII, 489-SOO. P. Natorp. Ihe Aspasia of Aischines. reconstructs, as far 
as it possible, this work and discusses the doctrines advanced by the author. 

P. 500. M. Petichenig emends Corippus. 

XXXIII. 501-6. G. Silt. Des Prudentius Abhttngigkelt von Seneca und 
t^can. The dependence of Prudentius upon thete authors is not confined to 
echoci of phrase, vocabulary or conslrvclion. but extends to entire scenes and 
eptiodes. For instance, Seneca's deicription of the death of Hippolylus 
(Phied. 1073 ff.) is the evident prototype of Prudentius' account of the death 
of the Christian martyr by the same name (Perist. 11. S5 ff.). So Oath. 9, 70 
= Hetc. Fur. 46 ff., etc. Naturally enough, Lucan's well-known fondness for 

, Google 


blooftf tcaia awl fngbtfol icnils of laflanBg nake tmn > wdcone SMidel Ebc 
>pa« »bo nadcTfoak u> 'laaifae dK deMba rf u » Ht yi». Sixt Ei*n>i"B^ 
of itnkioc pjjJUU. App— d««i to the article is a. dctstlcd liit ed nafk 
pbrasa M otilcb iaitxiaB i* eriikiw. 

XXXIV. ^7-11. 3. Lindc. Conectmaes in Scbccsb RIiEtarem. ConLiif 
article in vryL SO. p. 743. 

P. sil. C Radinger. Za [ric^ BpisnaBcn. 

XXXV, sia^a. O. Rontncfa. Za Amnini and den Codiixs Petnu. 
EdMMdatioai, ctodng «itli a ^szlnfus ctf die cpalewti of these MSS. 

P. Jja. V. Gudthnwn ditidws Sdmidt'i mte tn 'P. BagieoBos' (p. iK). 

XXXVn. S30--3S. M. Meaitita. Beittage nr Geadi. rOm. Dichtei ia Mittet- 
alter. conriDoes hu imcde of p. 156 C, tmiong op Tibulloa, P rnpctim , Si» 
Moaicai and Avianiu. 

ZXXVin, 136-40. O. Cnuin ^isuii Homiaa. 

Pp. S4I-4. K. Zacher. Zn Corip. AlkeMu. 

Pp. S4*^- J- Lanak. Za Eurip. Medea and Ariatnt. Rhet. II 14- 

Pp. S47-S. J. Mihly. Zok GooMologiiiB Vancaaom. 

Pp. 54S-9^ W. R. PaCfM. la LitwainiB. 

Pp' MO^t' G. FriedriclL Caajektnrcs m Plaatei (Tmc 3S0, 4S5 ; Atn. 
IM: Core ift-iav 

Pp- S5*-3- H. KAittin. Za Ter. Eaa. 347- 

Pp. 553-8. M. Kiderlin. Zna XL Bocte de* Qaitttiliairas. 

Pp. S5^-^ W- KfoU. Za dca laicTipt. duistiaaae nbii Romae. 

P. 56a O. lannUch dram atieation to Ac identity of as old fable partiiUj 
preMrred in a rragment of Ealtiiaaduia (Seka. 93 ; cp. Phacd. 1. Prol. 6 ; III 
17). with one told in the Iidabar epoa (Jeremias. Leipzig, 1S91. p. 18, tad 
Roicher'i Lex. Mrth., ' tidnbai,' p. 793). Innitd) thinks it likelr that lliii 
fable traTcIUd eaitwatd from Ljdia rather than in the opposite diiectioa. 

XXXIX, s6i'So. Th. Baitner-Wobst, Det Tod des Kaiacrt lalian. EiM 
QDelleniludie, girn hit verdict in favor of the scconot of Ammianns Marcel' 

P. 5B0. Th. Stangl. Zn Colaraella. 

a /lAyf 

XLI, 5BS-93. A. Scotland cmendi Odjtief, ■ 174 ff. 

P. J9I. Th. Stangl emend* Paneg. Lat. 10, 36. 

XLII, ;93-6oi. M. Schneidet examines the connection of the hymni of 
Ptoklos wllh Nonnos a* llluitrated in their vocabulary and verte-techniqne- 

XI. Ill, Aol-M. J, Kaent. Der Bnefwechiel Alexanders des Gtosmh- 
Eiiainlnei in detail luch letters as are preserved in Plutarch's Life of Aid' 
andct. In Athenaioi. etc., and concludes that none of them are genuine. Tbe 

.y Google 

XEPOJfTS. 249 

collection of letter* which Athenaitn had before him and from which citations 
are preienred in Heiychios anil Pollux wai alio uied by Plutarch. In their 
cooicnti ther cODtradict the better tradition of Alexandei'i history. Kaent 
conclodei that the original collection was the work of some late rhetorician. 

XLIV, 633-53, W. Schwari, Julianttnilien. Everj man ii the child of hii 
time becansehe iithe resnttof his training. If vre can trace the psycholc^ical 
dfieiopmeDt of Julian ai a result of these iofluences, we (hall be able to 
ditcorer why it wa* that a roan who was iniellectualljr head and shoulders 
ibo*e most of the empeiora who come before and after him should have 
andeitaken to dettroy Christianity. A great infinence upon his character was 
certainly derived from his studies, the extent and nature of which can best he 
Inrned from bii own works. This is the point that Schwari takes up in his 
article, discussing first, as a necessary preliminary, which of the works that 
come down to us under the name of Julian are genuine. 

Owing to the fact that he wrote for the world at large and not for a small 
circle, and Ihsl he is scrupulous to give the authority for every quotation, we 
more easily discover not only the extent of his own reading, but the tastes of 
the reading public of his time. Homer was his favorite author, and to judge 
ftom frequency of quotation the Iliad wis preferred to the Odyssey. Hesiod. 
though quoted with comparative infrequency, was carefully studied and much 
admired. Theognis was much read at the time. He is the only one of the 
elegiac poets whom Julian quotes, and that but once. The melic poets are 
not often mentioned. Of the tragic poets Euripides is of coarse the favorite ; 
Aiichyloi is not named. So, 100, the comic dramaiist-i are rarely alluded to. 
Il is a question whether Julian had ever read Menander, or. indeed, whether 
the works of Menander were at that time still in existence. He seems to 
have little syropalhy with the historians. Among the orators Isocrales is set 
in the place of honor, though he is not quoted. Demosthenes, Julian thinks, 
was as great as a writer as he was little as a statesman. 

With the emperor's turn for philosophy it is not surprising that after Homer 
the greatest influence — greater even than that of Euripides — should have been 
eierted by Plato. Julian admires Jamblichus, but perhaps does not overesti- 
miie him. Of contemporary writers no one had such an InBoence as Libanius. 
NitDially, the bible and the controversial writers were studied with great care 
sd:! attention. Thukydides. Lysias and Isokrales, three writers who were 
nach eiteemed in his time, he does not quote at all. Others he cites from 
nemory, and many more, of course, at second hand. 

Julian has the most sympathy with philosophy, the least with the comic 
elenenl in literature. Or to put il in another way. he cared least for Ihe real 
and the actual. He was contemplative, with a high capacity of romantic 
idtaliuiion. There was no appeal to the fancy or the imagination in the 
degniai of Christianity. This was one of Ihe reasons why he turned away 
From it. It was only in his favorite classics that he found Ihe food he craved. 
He was out of touch with his time and suffered accordingly. 
I*, bij. O. Cmsius. Ad Heroodam. 
XLV. 654-63. H. KOallin emends Thukydides. 
P. 663. O. Cmsiu* emends Eupolis, frag. 376 K. 

.y Google 

-.^ -, :v..-i- -•- T'^J^aiPrT, 

- j_ l-.TLi- ;,.i»n. ^iliMLap- 

ilt^kb mr i^ Griou del 

i:<rT=, ii.i*.!-^. n ■•rT.!air ^.5 indie js. ir ■ ieaBol 

.y Google 

REPORTS. 25 1 

Pp. 901-334- O. Cruiius, L. Cohn and E. Kuril. Zur handschriftlichen 
UcbcTliefemng, Kritik und Quellenkiinde der Paroemi^raphen. Containi 
ttie folIowiDE articles: Ein neuer Parallel-codex zum Miiler'ichen Athoaa 
(W3-20), O. Cmsias. Ein Londoner Exemplar der L-Klssse (331-3): Zur 
Uebeiliefemng det alphabet! tch en Corpus (314-67), L. Cohn. Nachtrigliches 
3ber Demon all Quelle der Paroemiographen (369-74); Aristophanes von 
Bjiani bet Zenobios und der Vers des Maison (275-80) ; Epicharn bei den 
ParoemiographcD (381-94), and Zn der atexandrinischen 5p rich wOriersamm lung 
(195-307), O. Crustus. Die Sprichw9rter bei Eustathios von Thessalonike 
(y>7-»4), E. Kurtz. 

Pp. 335-94. E. RiesE edits the interesting Frsgmenta Magica of the so-called 
Nechepso and PetOKJii*. The work i» accompanied by a brief initodnclion, 
by the lettimonia and an index. 

I"?- 395~9- H. Schiller, Die Caesarausgabe des Hirtins, opposes Hartel's 
Tiew (Comm. Woelffl. iSgl) that a complete edition of Caesar was issued bjr 
Antni Hirtins. He thjnka it very likely that Hirtius it the author of the 
Bellnm Alexandrinum, and that he published, tc^ether with its introduction, 
the eighth book of the Bellum Gallicum separately and ander his own name. 
PP' 399-400. M. Peiachenig. Sprachliches lu Frontin'i StrategemBia. 
Pp. 40i-5oa F. Noack. Der griechische Diktys. In his introduction to 
Diciyi, Septimins lays that he translated the work from the Greek. It was 
Dunger's Tiew (Pig., Dresden, 1S7S), which, since then, has been uniTersally 
accepted, that this Latin version of Seplimius is the original work, the only 
aathorily used by all the Byiantine and Mediaeval writers who have treated 
the same subject ; moreover, that Septimius' statement that bis work was 
trinslated from an ancient Greek text is pure invention and designed to 
eitablisb the credibility of his forgery. 

In Ihi* long and interesting article Noack attacks Danger's theory at all 
p«inls, and attempts to show that Septimins told the truth. The source to 
wbich hi* book goes back was a narrative more complete and circamstantial. 
It went under the name of Diktys and was wrrillen in Greek. The Greek 
Diklyi is, of course, now lost, bat the substance of it comes down to us by two 
lines of transmission — on the one side by the Latin work of Septimius, on the 
otber through the Byzantine Chronicle to the excerpts of Kedrenos and 
MiUlis. who are followed in turn by the other Greek writers of a later age. 
The Latin Diktys -Septimius may be placed somewhere in the fourth century 
A. D. The Greek original is older, and the sources of it lake us back to a 
period of respectable antiquity. The article is followed by an appendix on 
Diktys and John of Aniioch. 

Pp. SOI-65B. J. Marquart. Die Assyriaka des Ktesias. A detailed exami- 
anion of the sources and influence of this work. Briefly stated, Marquart's 
canclaiions are, substantially, as follows: Some portions of Ktesias' narrative 
■ere deiived from trustworthy sources. Many other portions were doubtless 
Tolklore pure and simple. These he enlivened with the aid of Herodotos and 
Hellanikos, whom he remodelled to suit his fancy. He did not consult state 
papers or records of an official character. His principal anlhorilies were the 

.y Google 

A«=?_"---Jjr _-J-C"JjrA£ OF PHILOLOGY. 
t ?K«sc&. ^! wiiu w ui ^nly £raB H»n.mi¥«., bat thclm if 

I tom(Ita]T.Gilbi 
>di-om>a. ».-ua;. lou s tCT^ qt &^ :3* CIL— IL OrtH, opH™- 

~L-n^-t -WM aicT »>::;i3i:&^ ata. iii w :Da«aa b(ii« tbc end o( tbc inl 
■ iW leal ugBiEom 
■ d^ tr— la tke Mcoad catii; 

i FiiT^ia is n. Bade do Linu- 
HML nxv GacifB aad CUmdiu. Ai 
u itaiir 3K ^ ntlMirit;, u he feeli 
ii3unn — -:»*j«*ty or. wbeB tk tn 

^etl. [-6.«hkk is brafcc* brttc 
~ :7ie wfc eoosiKed in a dioia if 
:uB a I niTii I ■ heit t er tbcj nn 
:aa k a Sfw oiocal maiki. 

t T-rs=tni33» del aluhrittlide" 
•i. r'nujataad Siesidioiis. 

■-. -i-a. V' 

.y Google 



Ariatopbanei. The Pluto* of ArUtophanes, with notes in Greek bised 
on tbe Scholia; ed. by Frank W. Ntcolaon. Boaton, Ginn A" Ce., 1896. 
c. 4+ "3 PP- !'■ ■t iinio, cl., 90 cts. 

Ariitotle. The Poetic* ; tr, with a critical lejil by S. H. Butcher. New 
York, MatmiUiui &• Co., 1896. 105 pp. Sto, cI., net |i. 

Boidier (Gaiton). Rome and Pompeii, aTcbaeologicoI ramble*; tr. by 
D. Havclock Fisher. New York, G. P. PtUnam't Stm, 1896. 1 1 + 435 PP- 
Map*, S*o, cl., (3.50. 

Bniaell (F. W.) The School of Plato: its origin, derelopmenl and 
rcTiTal under the Roman Empire. New York, Afatmiltan If Ct., 1896. 
16+ 346 pp. 8»o, cl., net Jj.jj. 

Egbert U*. C, Jr.] Introduction to the Stud; of Latin Inscription*. 
New York, Amtritan Btek Co., 1S96. c 7 + 46S pp. D- Iimo, hf.-lealh., 

Enripide*. Ion ; ed. with introd., notes, and critical appendix for upper 
and middle forms bf C. S. Jerram. New York, BfacmillaH &• Ce., 1896, 
17+ >oo pp. (Clarendon Pre** Series.) 16010, cl., net 90 cts. 

Farmer (J. S.) and Henle; (W. E.), comps. Slang and ill Analogues 
Past and Present In 7 v. V. 4. I-M^r. New York, imported bj C. 
Scritntr't Sem, 1896. 399 pp. Sto, hf.<leath., per set fjj. 

Gardner (Ernest Arthnr). A Handbook of Greek Sculpture. New York, 
itttmilUn &• Ca., 1S9G. II. ismo, cl., net %\.z%. 

Godlef (A. D.) Socrates and Athenian Society in His Day : a biograph- 
ical sketch. New York, MatmillaH 6* Ca., 1896. 133 pp. i2roo, cl., ^1.75. 
Gienfell (Bernard P.), ed. An Alexandrian Erotic Fragment, and other 
Greek papyri, chiefly Ptolemaic New York, lltaemiUan d* Co., 1896. 11 
\- 119 pp. 8vo, cl., net (3. 

Horace (Quintns Horatius Flaccus). Caiminum. Liber 3 ; with intiod. 
and notes by Ja. Gow. New York, Motmilltm 4* Cc, (896. 1 1 + 68 pp. 
(Pitt Press Series.) i6mo, cl., net yt cts. 

Lncian (Lncianni Samosatenais). The Timon of Lucian, Fritische's text ; 
with Bote* and Tocabnlary by J. B. Sewall. Boston, Gikh &• Cv., 1896. c. 
64- I4S pp. (School Claasics.) i6mo, cl., 5s cl*. 

Mitchell (E. C), I). U. Tbe Critical Handbook of the Greek New 
Teitamenl ; il. by diagram, table* and a map. New enl. ed. New York, 
HarftT,\%^. c '80, '96. )i+i7opp. Sto, cl., 

^d by Google 


MBllar (F. Hu), ad. Sacred Books of the Eut; tr. by nrioM Oritatil 
•cholan. V. 3S. The Vedlala'Sfltru, with commentmty \rj SanksnkaiTi; 
tr. b7 G. Thibanl. FL a. New York, MaamiUat 6* C«„ 189&, yn pp. 
Sto, cL, net #4.15. 

Omar Khajjin. RobiijsL Engliih, French and Geraan tnnilitioif, 
ComparatiTely artaagcd in accordance with the text of Edward nticenld'i 
TSralon ; with farther aelectiona, noiea, biographie*, bibli^raphy and «li«t 
material collected and Nathan Haakell Dole. itMtoa,J*afk Rm{lu 
Ce., 1S96. 1 v., per. iimo, cl., ^3.50. 

Scbnldl (ImniMiDel) and Tanger (Gnsuv). ed*. FIstel-SchDidt-Tu- 
ger'a Diclionarf of tbe En|li«h and Gcman Langnafca, for hone ud 
achool I with *peeia1 refereoec to Dr. Felix FlSgel'a 'Universal Engtiih- 
German and German- En gliih Dictionary.' In 1 pts.: pt. i, EnBli*k- 
German; pt. i, German- Engl iib. New York, Limtkt &• Buteimer, iig6. 
II + 96S, ii+<0o6 pp. 4I0, hC.-leath., $4.^0; the German-Englith part 
ieparatalj', (1.60. 

Terence. The Adelpboe ; ed. wiih brief note* and itage directions bj 
W. L. Cowlea. Boston. LtatA, Shcviell &• Sanitm, 1896. c. 4 + 73 PP- 
(Students' Series of Latin Classics.) iimo, pap., 15 cis. 

Torr (Cecil). Memphis and Mycenae: an examination ol Egyptian 
chronology and lis application to the early history of Greece. New York, 
Maciu/llau A* Ce., 1896. 10 + 74 PP- 3vo, cl.,net f 1.40. 


Alexindrian Erotic Fragment and other Greek Papyri, chiefiy Ptolemaic. 
Ediltd by U. P. Grenfeld. Oxford. 4I0, 158 pp. 8s. 6d. 

Anacdota Oxonlenila : Biblical and Patristic. Relics of tha Falesliniin 
Sytisc lllerature from MSS in Bodleian Library, etc Edited by G. H. 
Gwllliam, P. C. Butkett and J. F. Stenning. Oxford. 4to, 114 PP- S. Nr. 
967. las. fid. 

Browne (E. G.) Catalogue ol tbe Persian Manuscripts in the Libiair "i 
the University of Cambridge. Cambridge. 8vo, ijta pp. 151. 

Budge (B. A. Wallis). The Life and Exploits of Alexander tbe Creil. 
London. Svo, llv-f-610 pp. us. 6d. 

Fiagments, Talmudical, in the Bodleian Library. Edited wiib iniroduc. 
tion by S. Schechter and S. Singer. London, Fol. 10s. 6d. 

UillioR (H. C.) The Elements of Gaelic Grammar, London. Std. 
3». 6d. 

Macllain (Alex.) An Etymological Dictionary of tbe Gaelic Languigt. 
InTerueBR. Svo. 433 pp. 10s. 

M'Lcnnan (J. F.) Studies in Ancient History, id aeries. Landoa. 
Svo, 6i2 pp. ist series 16s, 311. 

le ri.m)ioon (A.) Queen Moo and the Egyptian Sphinx. London, in, 
341 PI.. £> to*. 

^pin^ i^.) An Arabic- English Vocabulary of the Colloqaial Arabic «l 
Egypt. London. Sto. £1 j^ 

Sludia Sinaitica No. $■ Apocrypha Sinaiiica. Anaphnia Pilati. Ediltd 
and translated by M. D. Gibson. London. 410. ys. 6d. 

.y Google 


Saelonius (C. T.) DiroB AnioMus. Edited by Shacltburgh. London. 
8*0, 116 pp. 101. 
Ti«D (A.) A Tarkish Grammar. London. Svo, 430 pp. 168. 


Adam (L.) Mal^riaux pour tervir &. r^UblUicmeBl d'une gTammaire 
compart det dialectCB de la famjlle Tupi. Pari*. Sto, 136 pp. ij ir. 

Basiet (R.) £tude sot la Z^natia de I'Ouars^nia et da Maghreb cenlral. 
Pirii. Svo. 7 (r, 50. ■ 

Cloquet (L.) L'ait monumental des figyptien* el des AsSTiieni. 
BroieUei. Stoi 97 pp. Avec fig. i fr. Jo. 

Emmanoel (M.) La danae grecqae aolique d'apris lei monuments figur^. 
Pari*. Sto. 600 fig. et 6 pi. 15 fr. 

De saltationii disciplina apud Graecos. Paris. 6 fr. 

Fmot (L.) Les lapldaires indiens. Parii. Svo. 10 fr. 

Rerillout (E.) Miflanges lur la m^lrologie, I'^conomie politique et 
rbitloire de I'ancienne £gf pie. Paria. Svo, lixviii + 530 pp. 100 f r. 

de Kidder (A.) Catalogue des bronzes Irouv^s snr I'acropole d'Atb^es. 
Paris. Sto. Avec 110 fig. 11 fr. 50. 


Acta martjrnm et sanclorom, (sfriace) edidit Paulas Bedjan, Cong. Misa. 
Tom. VL gr. 8. sii, 691 S. Parisiis. Leipcig, O, ffarraisfoiitt in Komm. 
m. 14. 

Actes dn X. congris intei national des oriental iste a. Session de Geneve 
1S94. IL parlie. Sections I: Inde; Ibis: Llnguistique et langues aryennes. 
gi. 8. vi, 210 u. 53 S. m. I Taf. Leiden, E. J. Brill, m. 8. 

Aeschinia orationes. Post Fr. Frankium curavit Frdr. BlaiB. Ed. maior 
aucia indice verborum a S. Preuss coufecto. 8. xv, 521 S. L., B. G. 
Titiintr. m. S 1 index Aeschineus allein (S. 333-511). m. 6.40. 

dasselbe. Ed. minor. S. xt, 332 S. Ebd. m. 1.40. 

Aischrloi, Orestie. Griechisch u. dentsch von Ulr. t, Wilamowitt- 
MocllendorS. z. Stuck. Daa Opfer am Giabe. gr. 8. z63 S. Berlin, 
Wtidatann. m. 7. 

AndeiioD (James Nesbitt). On the Sources of Ovid's Heroides I, III, 
VII, X. XII. Diss. gr. 8. 139 S. B., J. Ca/tti/y &■ C*. m. 1.50. 

Apollonius V. Kitium.illustr. Kommeniar lu dei Hippokrateischen Schrifl 
Tip! h^fui. Hrsg. V. Herm. SchOne. Mit 31 Taf. in Ltchldr. gr. 4. 
xxxix, 3S S. I.., B. G. Teubiur. m. 10. 

Appel (C.) Provensalische Cbretlomatbie mit Abriss der Formenlehre 
nnd Glossir. 8. xli, 344 S. Leipzig, O. X. XeiilanJ, 1896. m. 9. 

Baliachomachia, die homerische, det Karers Pigres, nebst SchoUen n. 
Fatapbiate. Hr«g. u. eilSntert v. Arlb. Ludwich. gr. S. vi, 484 S. L., 
S. C. Tiubntr. m. 10. 

Beitilge nt Assjriologie n. seniliscben Sprachwissenachaft, hrsg. v. 
Frdr. Uelitzsch a. Paul Haupl. 3. Bd. i. Hit. gr. 8. S. 189-385. L., 
/. C. NinricAi' Vtrl. m. 13.50. 

.y Google 

•t^*/ jM >,.-i'a^.K;iC3. 1 ::ic S. '»-7«-i. Statitf/S' Sirtrl, 1896. 
" i- 

l.'^Kif.ft *, l,«'iB'«-ie- Hr»^ ». EheA. Sefcr»dei. 4. Bd. p.8. B, 
0iHilur *» f/uA^rJ—^ Tesie fvristiicbca ■- p*cUftlickn iBhilM ». 
rrt. K I-".**!-, >z.3i3S. ■.13. 

',i.jjAg*atf«r(aal [t<(((Mu>. Die temiacbca Bnadfribcr bei Reicben- 
hill ih '/f,«(<rn. Mil 1 Katte. ii Taf. Abbildgk. a. a Aoucbtep dcf 
Kr*B'l« '■>'«(. 4. I'l.MS, BnnutAwt\%,F.yuw*x6^S*kM,\ttfi~ m-iS' 

l.lurn (M. TdIIiui). Taicnianaiam ditpBtatioanm libri V. Fflr dei 
n. hulK<t.(«»'Lh crklin t. Otto Heine, i. Hft. Libri III-V. 4. Anfl. f-i- 
ttt^ *. KI'd. in, 1.65. 

(:'iiiini*nl*llnnti phllolagac lenenae*, cdfdemnl aen-inarii philolofoniD 
(■iKHiti )>"•'■•*""■' Vol. VI, pan I. gt. 8. iii, 133 S. l..,B.G. Ttuintr. 

rNitiii* InK'dtil'oiuin eliaicararo; ab academia litterarum regia borni' 
alia |tB«illiiBi»l it *iicl«iat« lltterarnm regia saxonica LlpsJenai penniii 
mlKilKi. iiliiiliilixianla Aug. Uanleliion ed. Caaol. Panti. SegmenlaBi V 
*l VI, hill, », iM-J«4. I-..y. A. Barth. k m. io. 

('tti'»lil*i«U<i(A»ili,) Ue dadvl um Tacllco. gr. 8. 178. Brodr,,^- 

»;•>. III. I. 

.y Google 


gr. 8. 133 S. Bema«. 

DelitxMh (Friedr.) AttrHichet Handw5netbacb. 4. (Scblai«-)TI. 
p bis n. £T. 8. zz o. S. S77-730- L., /. C. Minrithi' Vtrl. m. lo.JOi 
kpit, Sabtkr.-Fr. m. 46,50 \ geb. in Halbldt., m. 49. 

Dioni* Ptotaenaia, qnem Tocant Chryioatomum, quae exitant omnia, 
«didit, apparatu critico inttrazit J. de Amim. Vol. II. gr. 8. ziv, 380 S. 
B., WtiJmann. m. 14. 

DiaaenatioDea phllologicae Haleniea. Vol. XIII, para i u. z. G. Haupt : 
CocniDeiiUtioaea archaeologicae va Aeichflnm. 8. S. 1-160. Mil 3 Tai. 
Halle. M. ffitmtytr, 1S96. m. 4.80. 

Drorik (Kdf.) Abfi Flrla, ein arabiacbet Dicbtet nad Held. Mit 
Taalibt'a Aniwahl ana aeinet Poiiie (Jellmet-Dd-dabr Cap. Ill), in Text 
nnd Ueberaetiung milgetetlt VOD D. 8. 344 S. Leiden, £./. fn'//, 1896. 
m. 7.50. 

Ebwald (R.) Kritiache BeitrSge (a Ovids EpistuUe ez Ponto. gr. 8. 
86 S. Gotba, F. A. Ptrlkit. m. 2. 

Et*do*. Acta philologica anecana. Edenda cnravit Vilelm. LuoditrOm. 
Vol. 1896. 4 faac gr. 8. 1. faac. j6 S. Upaaliae. L.,0. Harraiiemitt 

Fabriciua (V.) Ue Jo*e et Eato in P. Vergili MaronJs Aeneide. gr. 8. 
34 S. U, G. Fack m Kamm. m. 

FtAlicb(Kail). AdTcrbialtiIze in Caeaara b. Gall. V-VII. 1. Tl. Progr. 
4. soi>. M.,li.GatrtntT. m. 1. 

Geiber (W. J.) Die bebrttiachen Verba denominatiTa insbeiondere im 
ibeologiichen ^pracbgebrancb des Alten Testaroenlea. Eine lezikograpb. 
SiDdie, gt.8. IT, 150 S. L.,/. C. Ninritki" Vtrl. m. 7.50. 

Gilliacheoaki (Hogo). De Aetoloium piaetoribua intra annoa iti et 16S 
a. Cbr. n. maDcre (unctia. Uii*. gr. 8. 6z S. B., Maytr &• Afulltr. 
n. i-so. 

Goldiiber (Ign.) Abhandlangan zur arabiachcn Phllologie. t. Thi. 
gr. 8. Tii, 131 S>. Leiden, Buehh. u. Drucktrei varm. E. J. Brill, m. 7.50. 

Grobe (W.) Die Spracbe und Scbrift der Jocen. 8. zi, 147 S. Leipzig, 

0. Harraumtitit, 1896. m. S. 

Grflnbaum(M.) jQdiacb-apaniache Chreatoniatbie. S. it, 160 S. Fraok- 
farl a. M., Kauffmann, 1896. m. 4- 

Crnndrias der indo-arUcben Philologie u. Allertumtkaode, unter Mit- 
wirkg. T. A. BtiDci, K. G. Bbandarkar, M. Bloomfield, etc, brig. v. Geu. 
Bflbler. II. Bd. S. Htl. gr. 8. ijiraaabutg, X. J. TnHntr VtrL—U 8. 
Kecht a. Sitte (einachlieaalicb der einheimiicben LitleratnT) t. JdI. Jolly. 
160 S. m. 8. 

—~- der iraniacben Philologie. Hrag. v. Wilb. Geiger d. Ernst Kubn. 

1. fid. 3. Llg. gr. 8. S. 161-310. Slraasburg, K. J. Tmintr Vert m. 8. 
Halbertfma (Tjalling). Adversaiia critica. E achedia deiuncti aelegit, 

diapoiuil, edidii Henr. van Herwerden. Accedit epimettam de codiclbus 
blbliotbecarnD) exierarum, quos dracrlptit aut adhiboit Halbertama. Lex.- 
8. zzxvii. 175 S. ra. Blldnit. Leiden, E. J. Brill, m. 5. 

.y Google 


Handbnch der klasBischen Altertuintwi(*enscbafl in •fiteiMtiKkci 
Daistellung m. beiond, KDckiicht aa( Geichicbte d. Melbodik der einMlncn 
Dlsziplinen. Hrag. v. Iwan v. Mallei. 3. Bd. 4. Abtlg. gr. 8. Hflnctaci, 
C. H. Beck. — III 4. GTDndrisB der griechiichen Geschichte aebit QucllcS' 
kande t. Kob. POhlmmD. i. AuB. ri, 16S S. m. 5; geb., m. G.SO. 

S. Bd. 3. Tl. (II. Halbbd.) gr. S. Mnnchen, C. H. Bitk.-i. 

Geschichte der rOmischen Lilteratur bii lam Gepetigebnngtweik dn 
Kaitera Jaitinian. Von Mart. Schanz. 3. Tl. Die Zeit *i>n Hadrian 117 
bis auf Conitanlin 314. zii, 410 S. m. 7.50. 

Hartman (J. J.) De Terentio et Donnta commenlatio. 8. oii, 139 5. 
Leiden, 1896. m. 6. 

Hartman (J. L. V.) Notae criticae ad Platonii de repablica librot. 
Pars T (libb. I-V> gr. 8. 1*1,1598. Hatg, Af. Niftef. 0.4.25. 

Harvard Oriental Series. Edited by Charles Rockwell Lanman. Vol.11, 
gr. 8. Cambridge, Mass. L., O. J/arraittiiili in Ktmm. Geb. in Leioa., 
\ m. 6. — II. The Sftriikhjra-prairacanabhisya, or Commentaiy on the ExpO' 
■ition of the Sankhja Philosophj bj Vijllinabhikia, ed. bj Kich. Cube, 
xiv. 196 S. 

Hilprecht (H. V.) The Babylonian Expedition of the Universily of 
Pennsylvania. Series A ; Cuneiform Texts. Vol. I, part II, plate* 51-100. 
[Aus 'Transactions oi the Amer. Pbilos. Society.'] gr. 4. 68 S. PbiU- 
delpbla. Erlangen, X. Mtrtel. m. 30. 

Histoiie de Mar-Jabalaba, de (rois autres patriarcbeB, d'un prftre eldeoi 
lalqueg, Kestoriens. l^dit^e par Paul Bedjan, P. D. L. M. Neue Ansg. 
(In syr. Spracbe.) 8. xvi, 574 S. Paris, 1895-96. L., O. Harratttmb- 

Hollhausen (Ferd.) Lehrbach der altisltn disc ben Sprache. IL Alt* 
isUndisches Lesebach. gr. 8. xxvii, 19S S. Weimar, £. /V/J/r. 01.51 
geb. in Leinw., m. 6. 

Homer. Gedichte. :. Tl. Die Ilia*. Bearb. t. Osk. Henke. Test. 
J Bde. gi.8. \^, B. G. Teuinir. Geb., m. a.— I. Buch 1-13. iv, 195 S. 
m. 3 Karten. — II. Bucb 1^-14. Mil Kegitter der Personennamen a. d<i 
geogiaph. Namen. 331 S. 

Honein Ibn Ishdk. Sinnspiucbe der Philosophen. Nach der btbr. 
Uebersetzg. Charisi's ins Deutsche ilbertr. u. erltuterl v, A. Loewcnlhil. 
gr. 8. viii, 193 S. ^., S.Calvary b" Ce. m. 3. 

Hornefiei (Ernest.) De Hippia maiore qui ferlur Platonis. Dial. gr.S. 
iv, 70 S. Gottingen, DieltTick's Sort. m. 1 .to. 

Hunziker (Kod.) Die Figur der Hyperbel in den Gedichlen Vergili. 
Mit e. einleit. Unlersacbg. Qb. Wesen a. Einleilg. der Hypeibel g. aus- 
fUhrl. Indices, gr. 8. iv, 163 S. ^., Mayer &* Miilltr. m. 3.60. 

losepbi (FlaTii) opera omnia. Post Imman. Uekkerum rccognovit Siiu. 
Adrian. Naber. Vol. VI (finis). 8. li, 374 S. L., B. G. Ttuintr. m. 4- 

Juynboll (Th. W.) De livre de TimpOt foncier de Yabyi ibn AdiiD, 
public d'aprjs le manuscrit unique apparlenani i M. Charles Scbefer, 
membre de I'lnstilut. 8. ii, 142 S. Leiden, £./. Brill, 1896. m. 4- 

Kaluznlacki (Acmilian.) Actus epistolaeqne apostolorum palaeoilo- 

.y Google 


Tcnice. Ad Gdem codici* Chriitinopolilani eaeculo XII icripii edjdit K. 
■r. 8. siiiv, 37S S. m. i Lichtdr.-Taf. Wien, C. Gerald'! SoAh. m. n. 

K«rn«niaDii (Ernii). Die historische ScbriflBtellerei des C. Asinius 
Pollio. Zugleicb e. Beilrag zor QDcllenfoiBchg. Ub. Appian a. Plutarch. 
[Ana 'Jihrbb. f. clui. Phjlol., iz. Suppl.-Bd.'] gr. S. 138 S. L..B. C. 
Tntiner, m. 4.40. 

KT«UcbiDer(P.) Einleitung in die Geichichte der griechischen Sprache. 
8. iv, 418 S. Gattingen, VanJtnkatck Sf Ruprtckl, 1S96. m. 10. 

Kuipar (K.) Siudia Callimachea. I. De hjroiDornm I-IV dictione epica. 
gr. 8. 138 S. Leiden, A. W, Sijthaff. m. 6. 

Lanieniach (Dr.) Grammatische Stadien (a den griechiscben Tragikern 
n. Komikern. I. Personalendungen. Progr. gr. 4. 3a S. Gotha. L., 
G.Fftk. m.— 80. 

Legea Craecoium aacrae e titulis collettae. Edidernnt el explanavenint 
loa. de Proll, Lndov. Ziehen. Faac. I. Fasti aacri, ed. loa. de Pioll. 
Lez.-S. Ti, 60 S. \..,B. G. Ttubntr. m. 1.80. 

Licdl (Erneat). Die babyIoiii*cb-a**;ri»cben Praeaena* a. Praetental- 
ForrDen im GrnndaUmni der atarken Verba. Eine iprachvergleicb. Stndie. 
gr. 8. 51 S. MQnchen, H. Lukaschik. m. 4.80. 

L^mmatuch (Ernest.) Qnaettianei Juvenalianae. Intunt gloiaae Pilhoe- 
aaae iDterlinearei nunc ptiroam editae. [Aos 'Jahrbb. f. cla**. Pbilol., 3i. 
Sappl.-Bd.1 gr. 8. 134 S. L., B. G. Ttubmr. m. 4.40. 

Locani (M. Annaei) Pharealia. Com commentatio ccitico edidit C. M. 
Franclien. Adiecta sunt Bpcciroina phototypica A«hburahainen(is, Monle- 
peianluii, Voiiiani primi. Vol. I coalineDS libroa I-V. gr. 8. xlii, 114 S. 
Leiden, A. W. Sijthaff. m. S. 

Lncianai. RecognoTit Jul. Sommerbtodt. Vol. II par* pottetior, gr.S. 
s, 176 S. B., Wtidmann. m. 5.40. 

LDick(K.) Unleriuchnngen zur engliacben Lautgefchichle, 8. iiriii, 
334 s. Sttaaabnrg, A*./. 7V«^Mr-rfW., 1S96. m. 9. 

II arc i diaconi vita Porphyrii episcopi Gazenais, ediderunt aocietalia 
pbilologae Bonnenaii aodalea. S. ziv, 137 S. Leipzig, B. G. Tminer, 
1896. m. ».40. 

Msaqaeraj (Paul.) De Iragica ambigutlate apud Euripidem. Thesis. 
gT.8. 71 S. T^t'u,C. Xlintkiitck. m. z. 

Meditinbach, e. miltelenglischea, hrsg. v. Fiiti Heinrich. gr, 8. iii, 
»34 S. Halle, *■. Niintiytr. m. 6. 

Meliier (O.) Geschicbte der Karthager. II. 6d. 8. xil, 6ti S. Mit 
3 Kanen. Herlin, Wtidmann, 1S96. m. 13. 

Meyer (A. B.) nnd Scbadenberg (A.) Die Mangianensehrift *on Mindoro. 
Speciell bearbeilet Ton W. Foy. 4. 34 S. Mit 11 Abbildgn. 0.4 Lichidr.- 
Taf. Berlin, ft. Fritdlilitdtr &• Sohn, 1896. m. 10. 

Miiteilungen deV vorderaalatiachen Gcsellscbaft, 1S96. i. gr. 8. B., 
W. PtiiiT Virl. in Kamm — i. Die Inschrift der Stele Nabnna'id's, KOniga 
T. Babrton, eotb. die erste inschiif 1I. Nachricbt Qb. den Fall Ninivea, v. L. 
Heaactichmidl. 83 S., wovon 1 1 aulogr. tn. 5. 

Mullet (H. C.) BeilrSge tur Lebre der WorliutammeDaetzung im 
Gfiechiaclica. gr. 8. 59 S. Leiden, A. W, SijiHtff. in. a.50. 

.y Google 


M«M-JLi*ak \m.\ iMiiJMh i^li>ih ilialiihii HaoilwIUteibach. 4 
Uc. L S. M^-«*»- BcTln. Xaitktr 6- Rticiard, 1S96. n>. 5. 

Kikcl O'^t^^ Hmdw >. die EeSKhnftfoncknng. [Ana 'iS. Beikhl 
d. rfai'..«a:>iiK ca Kcjncl F- L im, 91 5. PadcTboni, F. Scimii^i. 

O'tibth^ I^ EifctoisK dcT ««■ d«*B Deolacbea Reich veranaultctcn 
ABfntwTi^ Is A rfm y do fceMf). fccaMJacken Hioisten det gent- 
iKhpK. rBtnnrte»- and ***^* -*^-"'- ft T t-'- c~ ^*i"T keramtg. *on E. CaRt» 
a*d F. Afm. :T, Toxi^ x. HUtx. ICt O. Tafelbd. a. V. Textbd. 4 
a. Fi>L T-liA a. S. i:>-±9a. Mk A^Anldca. 60 TaL in Kpfrat. n. FaibauJT. 
Uit I v. TrxL T-.: S. a. f3c ^p. Mn Fig. BrrUa, ^. ^iln- »■ C*., iS9£. 

(kn ,Hriai.l W«m?«^:l>.-:nLf^ Wi Sopbt^ea. Frogr. 4. 16 S. 

Oi:d'B MMasFCf^Mn n AaraaU. Fti die Scliale. Nach det grac 
■cm Aas(. *. Ha^ M^aas. a AVc^gm. Text a. KoMmenut. p. %. 
m, lira, rr. iijS, G«<i». r. A. J'^rtitt. Kart., B. I.80. 

Faavaa^ae Gra*«tM dncnpca. Ed:d)t, giacca encDdaTit, appintgm 
tnticaa ai-««: Hrrm. Hac^,c—ft»ria» gerBaaice acriplDDi cam (11) 
tab«:i» lopofiapk cis ct iiaaiwiii ii addidcTasI Hem. Hitiig et Unto 
ILKMCf . Vt^L >, pan i. LiWt I : Attica, p. S. asi*. 379 S. B., S. 
CaAary *• Ca ». ti 

FcTtvau Icaicoa cQpctcita^ E>iiti« k cr Ma ad cjitioaia ptincipis eien- 
pl*s- Accedaat aactaiia ex ephmcridi aegyptiaca BeroliaeDsi eictrpli. 
gi. 4. I. xzTti. 47« a. Aactaitua III. ao S. BeiUn, S. C*lvaty 6* C(. 
c 36: Aactutsgi ajleia. a. j. 

FiuI>jdeKi Tt^asiaailKioncaed. Siegft. Sadhaaa. ToUU. S. xxriii, 
371 S. L.. S. C. Tiiu^ittr. ■>. j-ro. 

Pbt^Diiii AlHandriDt upcia quae (spetsaat cdLdciaat l-cop. Cohnct Pail> 
Wndtxnd. Vol. I. Ed. Le«p. Coba. Adiecia est tabala pbotoiTpici 
CodtcH VioduboB'SBsis. gi. S. CiiT. 19$ S. B.. G. Kamur. m. 9. 

fUioB'a aatigesamce Dialog*. Eiktirt *. Haas Peteisea. 1. TI. Apo- 
logic. Kritaa. Nebst Abschaiitea ans anderea Schrifiea. Text a. An> 
BCrkgn. gr. S. Tii.it4«j6 5. V^WtidwuBf, Gefaw in Leia*. a. geli., 

P»[ta tiDguacDOi oiieaialtuiB. CteneataltBgaataB bebtaicac, pboeaidie, 
bibllca-arauiicac. etc.. itudiis academUis accoMBodavctant J. H. Petcr- 
maDn. Hern. L. Strack. E. Nestle, etc. Paw XVIIL S. B.. jendio-S- 
jFo.^ar./. — XVIIt. Kun^Casste Gramwacik der biUitck - aiamtitcbca 
Sprache, LitieratoT. Paradigmeo. krttiscb betichligtc Tczte a. Glo*«atf. 
Karl Marti, xi*. 134 a. 90 S. m. 3.60; geb,. B*. 4.40. 

Quellcnwerke der altindiscbea Lexicographic. Hisg. in AaftTH' ''" 
kaiv Akadeuiie der WisieascbaftcD in Wiea. II. Bd. gr. L Bombaf. 
Wien. A. m!dir.—\l. Das UnadigaDasatca dcs HcBachaodia m. dt* 
•clbsticrUssccD Commentare dcs Auiurs. Hcsg. ■. Job. Eirstc Nebst t. 
Appendix, cnth. dcii Index lucn AnekartbasangralLa. t. T^ Zacbariu- 
55 a. 141 S. D. 8 70. 

.y Google 


RcaULciikon d«r enslUchen Spriche (m. AaHchlatt Anedkai). Hrvg. 
V. Clem. Klftpper. {In ca. lo Lfgn.) i.Lfg. %i.%. S. 1-64. X„Rtngir. 
m. 1.50. 

Ricken (W.) Lexiqae de La France, le pajra et sod penple. gr. 8. i*. 
160 S. B., W. Granait. Geb. in Leinw.. n. 1. 

Saga-Bibliolhck, altnardiiche. Hr*g. *. Gnit. Ccderactaiold, Hugo 
Gctiog n. Eog. Mogk. 4. Hft. gr. 8. Halle, M. KinniytT.—i. Ludaela 
uga. Hrag. V. Kr. Kftlniid. vii, xir, 976 S. m. 8. 

Saloman (G.) Die ReaiaaraiioD der Venm von Milo. 4. vi, 74 S. Mit 
5 Taf. Sitockbalm, 1895. m. 11. 

Scblegel (Git.) La loi de paralltfliBme en tlyle chinoli d^monlr^e par la 
preface do Si-TO-ki. S. 1, 303 S. Leide, 1896. m. lO. 

Schmidt (C.J WOrterboch der Straaibargcr Mnndart. Mit einem Pottt. 
des Vctfaater), aeioeT Biographic nnd einem Verzeicbnisse *einer Werke. 
3 Lfgn. 8. XX, 113 S. Straisburg, /.#.£. //n/i, 1896. ro. z.50. 

Scbreiber (Thdr.) Der Galtlerkopf dea Muienm* in Gtie bei Kairo. 
Ein Beitrag lur alexandrinltcben KunitgcBchichte. Fol. iii, 30 S. Mil 6 
Fig. n. z Tif. in Pbolograv. Leipiig, A. G. Lhbiikind, 1S96. n. 

Sereni Antioocnsis opuicola. Ed. et latine interpretatni eat I. L. Hei- 
berg. 8. xix, 303 S. m. Fig. L., B. G. Ttt^iur, m. 5. 

Serta Harteliana. Lex.-8. 314 S. m. Abbildgn. n. Bildnis. Wien, F. 
Tempiky. m. ro. 

Sethe (Knri). UntetsDchangen idt Geichichte n. Altertmnikaode 
Aegjrptena. i. Hft gr. 4. L.,y. C. HmrieAt' Verl.—x. Die Thronwirren 
unlet den Nacbfolgem Konigs Thatmnsia' t, ihr Vetlaof u.ihre Bedeutung. 
— I. Die Frinienlltte t. Medinet Habn u. die Reihenfolge der erateo 
KSnige der ao. Dynastic, vi, 119 5., wovon 65 autogr. m. 14. 

Storm (Job.) Englischc Philologie. Anleitang mm wiiienachaftl. Stn- 
diDin der engl. Sptacbe. Vom Verf, t. daa deutache PubKkum bearb. 
i. Aofl. L Uieleb. Sptacbe, i. Abtlg. Rede a. Scbrift. gr. 8. ixi d. S. 
485-1098. Leipiig, O, X. Rtuland. m. 1 1. 

Strack (Herat. L) Abrit* dei bibliichen Aramliach. Grammatik, nacb 
Handschiiften beiichl. Texte, WOrlcrbucb. gr. 8. 330.475. L.,/. C. 
HimrUkt' Vtrl. m. 1,60. 

Stretni (Franc.) De Necfia Humerica. Progr. gr. 8. at S. Klagcn- 
(on, F~ V. KUinmayr. m. i. 

iiiumme (Ha.) Granmaiik des tnnisischen Arablsch, nebst Gloiaar. 
8. riii, 183 S. Leipzig,/. C. Hinritht' Vtrl., 1896. m. 9. 

Talmnd.der babyloniacbe. Herauig. nach dei edition princepa (Venedig 
iszo-i^). nebat Varianten der sptteren *on S, Lorja nod J. Berlin rcT. 
Aoagaben and det Moncbener Handachrift (nach V. L.), mOglichat wort- 
Ketreu aberaetit nnd mit kuTien Eiklirungen vetaehen von Lax. Gold- 
acbmidl. I. Lfg. 4. I. Bd. S. 1-80. Berlin, X CuA'arf ^ Ca., 1896. m. 5. 

Tatdel (Herm.) Quellen XD Cbamissoa Gedicbten. Pcogr. gt.8. 23S. 
Graodenz. L.. G, Ftct. m. — 70. 

Uhlenbeck (C. C.) Kutigefaiatei etymologi aches WOrterbnch der goti- 
acben bpracbe. gr. 8. Tiii, 174 S. Amsterdam, y. Afiitllr. ta. 4.80. 

.y Google 

r: A:.r£s:cA.v ■r::-a.vAL of psilology. 

Kiit. 'i iiB—i ■ uia "ii— ■ 4. Tiii. 50 S. Kt 1 Uebenichttfcute 
- "u. ■ :_w=tBr. Maisu^ .v. 1. Miwtrfi TerL, iflgft. ■. S. 
'■t-.-.taamna . V. ^Jraacac 'ii—iirt Golnch. Alt-. Mhtel- >. Ken- 
ikOvcaoca. ^ ict:^ ''TuTTSiiasB^ =. Bmtc p. & EVt ». S. 35}- 


u« ':( .««■. \.:!>nenCUBCflB Fii 11 ^mi ■ ET. |r. S. L., £- 
t Sonlnrnem. — Zm >lten Ge- 

!ie Tleifny^ a der Vtaim 

*-«• .. %«..<«. :. 1. i ws-jTO a. I Tit B. 4 ; f«fc^ ■- *-y>- 

. "-. u :ai >,rt;, " 1 irillMI jr. i TOI, £5» S^ B^ /"- J>Kmm- 

.y Google 


Af achy to* Orotic. Gtiechisch unil Dcuibi;!! vuii Uliichvon Wilamowiti- 
MocllendoiS. Zweitei Stuck. Das Opfer am Giabe. Berlin, /TriVmaiifi- 
leht Buckhandlung, 1896. m, 7. 

Annaal Literarj Index, 1S95. Edited b; W. I. Fletcher and R. R. Bowker. 
New York, Offiet of thi Publiihtrt' Witkty, 1896. 

AntimachuB ol Colophon and the Position of Women in Greek Poetry. 
By E. F. M. Benecke. London, Swan SsitHinichiin &* Co., Lim., 1896. 

Ariatophanea. Plutna. With notes in Greek, bssed on the scholia. 
Edited by Frank W. NicoUon. Boston and London, Cinn &• Co., 1S96. 

AriMoteles' Poelik, Za. Von Theodor Gompeiz. II, 111. (SitiunRs- 
berichle der Kais. Akad. d. Wissensch. in Wien, phil.-hjsl. Classe. Band 
CXXX V, Abh. 1, 4.) Wien. Carl GtroltTt SfA«, 1896. 

Anbignd {Agrippa d'). Les Tragiqnes. Litre premier. Miseres. Texte 
avec une introduction, des Tariantes et des note* par H. Boutgin, L. Foalet, 
A. Garoier, Cl.-E. Haitre, A. Vacher. Paris, Armand Celia it Cie., 1896. 

Belt (Alexander Graham). Growth of the Oral Method of Instructing 
the Deaf. (Reprint from Annual Report o( Committee on the Horace 
Mann Scbool, School Document No. iz, 1895.) 

Bell (Alexander Melville). English Visible Speech in Twelve Lessons. 
ninstraied. Washington, Tie Vvlla Bureau, 1895. 50 cls. 

Bethe (Erich). Prolegomena tnr Gescbichte de* Theater* im Aliertbotn. 
Leipiig, S. Hirul, 1S96. 

Boreadea (A.) 'QiA^ 'OXv^ttiiie} Ttoiifitiaa t'n roiic rtKeoBivTai r^ 1896 iv 
IMiyuf 'OJ-eitnauuA^ ayuvac. Athens, It. Btreades, 1S96. 

Braaue (Theodor). Ueber einlge ichallnacbahtaende Sittmme in den 
germantschen Sprachen. Wi*sen*chaftliche Beilage zum Jahresbericht 
des KOniglichen Laisen-Gymaasiams zu Berlin. Ostern 1S96. 

Brenooa (J.) Etude aur le* Hell^niames dani la syntaxe latine. Paris, 
C. Klin^ktiiek, 1895. 

BrowD (J. T. T.) The Authorship of the ■ Kingis Quair.' A new crit- 
icism. Glasgow, y<i«/i MaeLeheu 61' Sem. New York, ATacmillttn A* Co., 
1896. »i.So. 

Brown (Nellie LaKue). Brother Aleck. Louisville, Kentucky, The 
AiHA»r, 1S96. 

Calvl (C. Licini) reliquiae. Edition complete des fragments et des 
l^moignagea, Jtnde bfogtaphtqne et litti^raire par F. Plessis, avec un essai 
snr la pol^miqne de Cic^ron et des Attique* par J. Poirol. Paris, C. 
Klititkiitek, 1896. 

Ctna in Caudiano Nervae, carmen praemio aoreo otnatum in certaoilne 
poetico HoenStiano. Accedunt duo poemata laudata. Amatetodami, a/»>f 
/•. MullerMm, 1896. 

^d by Google 

B ^taa^Hcv bcm| brief nia ib i 

[ Latiaoraa. Vol. XXVIH {jccL 
K BKiTn, 
MB Jowpki ZfchL < 

r laa r I. Laa^ BMCoa. Giim &• £«. [kn tic 

^:s '>~<au ji Rmm*. Antica. L Lb f lI^imi 
--.-m. r -aan ■mm*. Milan, OtpO. O^ 
* naac "11 laMi—w quae enCMt aaaii 
—rrd . B \ruam. Vol. EL Benriiai. <^ 

— >. -vT'jB a ^bm Am^ of Luja InMttpdaai. 

^c ,'..:a It :l» Greek States. la tkrtt 
■■■ '1. '-.~vBi(ii .*7A. Londmi, Bairj Frrmit, 

~'x '<i=n:-:es a ^bc IndD-Enropeaa Lia- 

.vT— I i 1 1 1 III II Literanue. Ne* Totk, 

.y Google 


Hillebnndt (Alfred). VedainterpretaCion, BtetUD, Withilta Kotbtur, 

1895. m. 1. 10. 

Holmei (David H.) A Stud; of the Type of the Greek Epitaphioi with 
ipccial reference to the oration in Thncydides. (Keprinted from (he 
Kanttts Utatiiriiiy Quarttrfy for April, lSg6.) Lawrence, Kansaa, 1896. 

Htmtr. Art and Humanity in H. By William Cranston Lawton. New 
York, MatmillaH Sf C*., 1S96. 75 cts. 

Kahle (B.) Alttslindiaches Elemeotaibnch. Heidelberg, Carl WmUr'i 
UnititrtilSti-^tkAaiidluiig, 1S96. 

Kehr (F.) Ueber eine rOmiiche Fapyraiurkunde im StaatsarcKiv zu 
Marburg. (Abh. der KOnigl. Ges. d. Wisa. zu Gottingen. PhiL-hiai. 
Kluae. Neue Folge. Band l, Nro. 1.) Berlin, Wtidmanntehe Butk- 
kamdluH£, 1S96. m. 3. 

Knautk (Hermann). UebungistQcke zom Ucbenetzen in da* Lateioiacbe 
for Abilurienten. later Tell : Deatacher Text iter Tejl : LateioiBche 
Ueberaetzong. Leipzig, C. Frtytag. Wien n. Frag, F, Ttmpiky, 1896. 

Livianiacben Stiles, Die Enlwickelung det. Von Sidney O. Stacey. 
(Hanicb Diaaertalion.) Leipzle, B. G. Ttuinir, 1896. 

Lncani (M. Anoaei) Fbataalta. Cum commeotario critico edidit C. M. 
Ftaockcn. Vol. 1 contiaeo* llbroa I-V. Luf[dani-BataTornm, apud A. W. 
Sijihtff, 1896. 

Lncianua recogno*it Julius Sommetbrodl. Vol. II, pats posterior. 
Berolini, afud Wtidmannti, 1896. m. 5.40. 

Mailer (H. C.) BciliAge zur Lchre der WortiasammensetzuDg im 
Griecbiicben. Leiden, A. W. Sijthaff, 1896. 

Orette NaiAii. Del tnffitao locativo -it nel gteco e nell' antico indiano, 
Torino, ViiKfHu Bona, 1896. 

Ovidins Naso (P.) Ausgewllitte Gedichte far den Schulgebranch her* 
aasgegeben tod Heinrich Stephan Sedlmayer. jte unverinderte Auflage. 
Leipzig. G. Freylag, 1894. m. 1,10; bound, m. 1.50. 

Oxford English Dictionary. Edited by James A. H. Murray. DIHtuenl- 
Diabntden (vol. III). Oxford, ClartndoH Frtii. London, Henry Fronde, 

1896. is.6d. 

PUto, The School of. Its origin, development and revival under the 
Roman Empire. By F. W. Bnisell. London, MttAutn &• Ca. New York, 
Macmillan »• Co., 1896. $2.75. 

Platon. Snr une nonvelle methode pour determiner la chronologic des 
dialog;oes de F. pat W. Lutoslawski. Tirage It part da Compte-rendu des 
s<!«ice* et travaux de I'Acad. des sciences morales et poliliques, vol. 
CXLVl, No. 7. Jnillett896. Ya.ra,^. t fr. 

Plato's Republic, The Idea of Good in. By Paul Shorey. (Reprint 
Irom vol. I of SCuditt in Clattieal PhiUlogy.) Chicago, Tki Univiriily af 
CUcagt Prtti, 1895. 

FUuhn. The Palatine Text. By W. M. Lindsay. Oxford and London, 
Jama Parhtr &• Co., 1896. 

Poyen-Bellisle (Rent! de). The Lawa of Hiatus T in Gallic Popular 
Latin. Chicago, Tk4 Autker, 18^, 

^d by Google 


pKBdo-PUtoDica. By W. A. HeideL (Uiii*ereily r>i ChidEO Diiiti- 
titioD.) Ballimarc, Tkt Fradtmaald Co., 1S96. 

Schmid ( Wilhelm). Ucr Attidimiis in teiiien Haaptveitretern. Vurtec 
Baad. StDltK-tt. W. Ktklkammir, 1896. 

ScripioTc* Historiae Angastae, obsetrationes in. Scripait Rob. Notik. 
(Ex ephemcridia Ceske Hnteam Filologicke ton. II seoraiim eipicHiim.) 
Pragae, 1S96L 

Serenas SammODicas. Qaonodo a medtcina Pliniana ipsoqne Flhiio 
pendeat. DisMilalio inaognrali* qnam acripait loanoca Keeae. Rostocbti, 
C BtUt, 1896. 

Sopboclii Oedipodc Coloneo. de. Specimen litefarium iDaognnlc 
acripait Jobanoea Hooykaaa. Lugdaai-BataToium, afud A. W. Sijiit/, 


Steele (K. B.) The Fonnola imw meda—ttd itiam and its EquiTalents. 
(Keprinied Irom Iltineii Wtittyan Magiaint, vol. I, No. 4.) Bloom ingion, 
111., Tkt l/nivtriily Prtii, 1896, 

Stadia Sinaitica, No. V. Apocrypha Sinaitiu. Edited and translated 
into English by Margaret Dunlop Gibaon. London, C.J. Clay Sf Sunt, 1896. 

Stadies in Classical Philology. Vol. I. Chicago, Thi i/mivtrnlf/ 
Chicago Prtis, 1895. 

Studies and Notes in Philology and Literatnre. Vol. IV. Stadies ob 
the Libeaas Dcsconos by William Henry Schofield. Boston, Gitiit 6' Ct,, 

Tacitus' Agrikola, ScbaleikomnieiiiaT in. Von Andreas Weidaer. 
Leipiig, G. Frtytag, 1S96. m. — 30- 

Tercnce. The Adelphoe. Edited with brief notes and stage directioM 
by William L. Cowles. Boston, New York, Chicago, Ltoik, SJinvtll if 
SanbirH, 1S96. 

Timmermans (Adrien). ^Etymologies compar^es de Mots Francai* el 
d'Argot Parisien. ire liviaison. Paris, C. KUnekiitek, 1S9& 

Totr (Cecil). On the Interpretation of Greek Mnsic. London, Ht^y 
Fremdt, 1S96. Is. 

Walker (S. T.) The Modicum of Hearing of Deaf Mutes. (Reprint 
[lom the Medical Fertnightfy, St. Louis, March 1, 1S96.) 

Warren (Henry Clarke). Buddhism in Translations. (Harvard Orieatil 
Seiies, vol. III.) Cambridge, Mass. Published by Harvard Univcrtitj, 

Weil (Henri). Un Pean Dclphique li Dionyios. (Eilrait dn BnlUli* 
dt CarrtspBttdanct HtlUniqut.) 

Review of Theodor Gomperz, Griechiache Denker. (Eitnit da 

Journal du Savanti, Fevrier 1896. ) 

Weismann (August). On Germinal Selection. (Religion of Science 
Libraiy.No. 19. May, 1S96.) CU<:tgo,Th€OftHCi>tirtPiiiliilungCt.,\1^. 

White (John Williams). The Opisihodomus on the Acropolis at Atheu. 
(Reprinted from Harvard Studita, vol. VI.) 

Wilbelm (Eugen), Zur Metrik des Avesta. (Eitrait.) Leiden, £./. 
Brtil. 1895. 

.y Google 


Vol. XVH. 3. Whole No. 67. 


In order that no one may imagine that the writer has taken it 
upon himself to attempt a new and complete treatment of ablaut, 
and that, too, deliberately and in cold blood, it may be stated that 
the followinf; observations are (he outgrowth of what was intended 
simply as a statement of position introductory to a discussion of 
' Brugmann's Law.' But as the introduction has grown to exceed 
the limits of the main article, and as, after all, very few of the 
points discussed here have a necessary bearing on the problem 
mentioned, it has seemed wise to sever the connection. Within 
the last few years several important discussions of general ques- 
tions of ablaut have appeared. It is sufficient to mention those oi 
Barlholomae (Bz. B. 17), Kretschmer (K. Z. 31), Bechtel (Haupt- 
probleme d. indog. Lautlebre) and Streitberg (L F. III). It may 
be said with truth that, as regards ablaut, we are in the midst of a 
second 'Sturm und Drang' period, in which the follower of this 
line of work feels the necessity of 'pulling himself to)^ther' and 
seeing where he stands. Many of the questions raised are of 
such a nature that the answer to them must ever remain proble- 
matical, since they have to do with changes which took place in 
a period of Indo-European development far beyond our control. 
The consideration of such questions has its interest and its value 
too. But one must beware of placing the conclusions on a level 
with those arrived at in matters pertaining to that period of Indo- 
European history immediately preceding the separation. The 
method employed is the same in both cases, but the further we 

.y Google 


go back tbe greater the chance of error — that is, tliat the tme 
Actors may have become obscured by others really seccmdary. 

8ut it is not merely in these remoter qaeslioDs regarding the 
ultimate origin of the vowel TsiiatioDs that doabt exists. There 
is no complete aoanimity of opinion as to what types should be 
recognized as lodo-Eoropean. It b even daimed by some — 
notably Moreen, Urgerm. Laatlehre, 37 £ — that all attempts to 
set ap a limited number of series, like the six whic£ are recog- 
nized in Bnigmann's Gnmdriss, are Aitile. Bat this standpoinl of 
Noreen's is far too ladicaL An hypothetical ablant-system, like 
our reconstructed Indo-European forms, is a matter of ctmven* 
ience. It expresses briefly the opinion of the time npon the 
interrelatiODS of the various vowels, shows what are the normal 
variations and what sets of changes belong together. The best 
ablant^ystem b the one which gives the dearest summary of 
related types. Now, while it is true that there are certain inter- 
changes of vowels which find no place in the six series of Hiibscb- 
mann in their accepted form, and which, Devertbeless, may date 
back to the Indo-European period, yet Noreen's own method has 
more serious faults. In setting up some sixteen varieties of vowel 
changes and making these all co-ordinate, he separates much that 
unquestionably belongs together. For example, he treats ihe 
variations q( pid-.pod- (X-at. pis •.'Dot. »iff, §12), oi pei-:pei 
(Lat. figdes:<AJt, §13), of^rf- -.pcd- {Lm. pedis : Dor.«i., 
§15), oi f^d.ped (Lat. pes -.pedis, §34) and of pdd- -.pod- (■•[: 
wMt, %^(>) as if they were as independent and unrelated to ooe 
another as is the variation a : a (§33) to any of these. And, vice 
versa, in combining the variation of ^ : >^ in riAjfu : B^fAit with that 
ofvenimus : fimii6t {§12) he brings together things which ought to 
be kept distinctly apart. Jloreen's system Is intended to be so 
flexible as to offer a place for every conceivable variation of 
vowel, but if a student should base his ideas solely on such a 
scheme, he would fail to recognize many of the most certain and 
essentinl facts of ablaut. 

Let us consider some of these certain facts with a view to the 
best practical arrangement, and of the various types let us choose 
for illustration Ihe one in which the normal form is eu. The 
variations in the order usually followed are ; w, u, e^, ou, If. ^ 
(nr u, /;. IK. MO, Vi, Vo)- In Bruf>mann's Grundriss and elsewhere 
the first two. under the name of Tiefstufen or low grades, are set 
over against the last four, which, under the name of Hochstufen 

.y Google 


or high grades, are designated by numbers as i, 2, 3, 4. But it 
n clear that the 'Hochsiufeo' 3 and 4 iey,, otf) are in a class by 
themselves as against i and 2 (^, <>«), and a special term for 
these, 'Dehnstufen* or lengthened grades, has been suggested 
and has met with deserved approval. Further, there is a special 
relationship between e^ and iu as compared with ou, 09. We 
may simply speak of the e- and c-rorms or make use of Victor 
Henry's term 'deflected' for the (?-forms. Again, it is universally 
recognized that there is a special relationship between u and ^.' 
Beyond question we have to do with three distinct kinds of vari- 
ation: t> that of strong and weak, as eif.u; 2) a qualitative 
change, as f 9 : c^ ; 3) a quantitative variation, is e^■.iu. These 
respective interrelations are illustrated by the following scheme, 
which to my mind is preferable to the usual arrangement : — 

Weak. strong. 

Short « W'^l'^n 

Long u il^/^JI 

It sometimes happens that one kind of variation is substituted 
for another, as, for example, that of u : » in place of original 
» : eu, occasioned by the analogy oie:i and a -.a. It is probable 
that the inflectional type represented by Skt. dkis, gen. dkiyds, 
bhrlis, gen. tikruvds, gir, gen. girds, piir, gen. purds, originated 
in this way. Cf. Bechtel, Hauptprobleme, 174 ; Bartholomae, 
I. F. I 183, and the literature cited; Streitberg, I. F. Ill 334-5. 

' It ii impoisible to conBne this vAriation or /y (or u^:ii to coot* <A the 
heflTf (eries, and I cannot account for [he following voids of Streitberg, I. F. 
Ill 306 f.: "Hiennit ist abet ein neues Kriteriam zur Scheidung arsprUnglicber 
and gedehater Langdipthonge gcgeben. Denn die duTch Steigerung ent- 
HaodneD Langdipthonge heben sich von den piimiren dadnich deutlich ab, 
dw* ihre Scbwnndstufe regclmikssig kmien Voltal besitzt. Am schSrfsten tritt 
dieie Thatsache vielleicht beim r-Aorist heivor, wo neben den langen Vokalen 
dea aktJTcn IndicaliTS auanabnislos kurivokalische ScKwnndilufen eTscbeinen, 
Ein laager 5ch wands tu fen vokal ist hier unerhQri. Vgl. i. B. dla^ nebcn 
diSTiam." But it is the object of Streitbei^'i article to show that the length- 
ened forms, including such as didr^am, go back lo dissyllabic fonns. and at 
the lame time the connection of the long weak foims with dissyllabic roots 
[Haidt tkdvitian) is beyond question and mainlained by Slreitbei^ himself; 
cf. 1. c, p. 385 : " Die VokallSnge der Schwundstufe giebt aber Knnde von der 
Geslalt der Vollstufe. Diese ist zweisilbig gewesen. Daranf deutet anch 
anueidf m aind. Hdvifura, iAavilar-., ihavitra-." The two statements do not 
barmoDiie. On the ablaut in the Sanskrit /•aorisl cf. below, p. 374. 

.y Google 


Oo« of the moet mterestmg fiainplf» of this secondary aUaut- 
variatioo is leeo in die SUvic itenitivea whkb are of denominuive 
origin. Denominatives with the vowel i in the root syllable were 
associated with simple veriM having e in the root syllaUe, the 
interchange e : ? becoming typical ; & g. Skaii iter, to &if , Uiti 
'Bow,' -miiaii to meitq.mtlaH 'ihiow,' kic Again, denominatives 
with a (= I. E. d and 0) in the root syllable were associated with 
verbs with « (I. E. a and c), giving the variation « : o ; e. g. 
'bttdeM to bodi^ bosH 'stab,' -ganjoH to gmdH, this last itself an 
iterative (of the 'causative' formation) to gnati, xen^ 'strike.' 
The variation of long and short vowel bad in this way become so 
typical that from verbs with f or d in the root arose iteratives 
with I, and y, as ciiati 'read' to 2lta 'count,' -sypaH to -r£iifA' 
'sleep.' Tbb was extended even to verbs with ir, the weak form 
of er, as biraii to ber^, birttti ' collect.' Ct Leskien, Handbnch 
d. altbulg. Spr., p. 15 i. 

The same phenomenon appears in the Lithuanian preterits. 
After the analoj^y of the types pres. ielid : pret. kiliau, karii : 
k^iaa arose girik : gyriau, buriit : btiriau, etc. 

So in Greek the original ablaut of the present suffix -luu : -nti 
(Skt -no : •»») has been replaced by vu : rv, owing to the iofiuenoe 
of m : !«.' 

A possible example of the opposite substitution in proethnic 
times is Skt (tie, Av, saiii, Grk. Htm beside Av. sdiH. We 
should expect Skt. fUe, which would stand in the same relation 
to Av. iditi as Skt. s^le to sditiL J. Schmidt, Pluralbildung, 255. 
speaks of two low-grade forms to di — namely, Skt. e and i, as 
noted by Schulze, K. Z. 27, 432. But Schuize at least does not 
mean that the ^ is a real low grade, but only that it holds the 
position of a weak form. Further, in the aorisi forms like dn^fi 

' 1 imthcT inspect (be same thing in Lat. mifleii and ma^ciwrn. Nearly 
all the word* which used to be ciied as showing a phonetic change of r to I 
hare found another explanation, but in these two words (ai well ai in di^nii, 
where I woald follow Osthoff) eren Solroien, K. Z. 34, 15. admits the change. 
Vet even under (he conditions which Solmien lajs down there are so many 
excepiiont to be explained away that some other explanation of the two 
words would be welcome. And it teems quite possible that after the analogy 
of tetUgitim to Ugi, cBnii^um to taugi, txiwm (from tx-dgmtn) to ago, etc., 
(here arose at a later period (o impitii (from *tu!pteii) a nooD luifiHi, and to 
con-viii (from *eoM'Veti or *cmt-vixd; ct. Solmsen, Stud. i. lat. Sprachge- 
schichte, p. 17) a noun eont/tdtun. It is fanher possible that the I of imOg* 
to -ittHfui is due to the analogy of t/Jart (o irdii, etc. 

.y Google 


to atdifom we may have a similar phenomenon. Cf. Johansson, 
K. Z. 32, 509, and below, p. 374. 

If we pass to the somewhat slippery ground covered by the 
discussions as to the ultimate origin of the ablaut changes, the 
distinction of the different types of variation is still useful. It is 
clear that these must be due to three distinct causes, and may 
well have arisen in totally diHerent periods of the parent speech. 
For only one kind of variation is the cause perfectly dear and 
beyond dispute. No one at present doubts that the relation of 
Skt. Smi to imds reflects original conditions, and that the low- 
grade comes from the high-grade form by loss of the (stress) 
accent. For the understanding of the other two types we are 
less fortunately situated. Whatever were the original factors 
governing these variations, they are nowhere reflected with such 
clearness, perhaps because they operated at a remoter period and 
bave been exposed longer to cross-influences. 

In regard to the qualitative difference it is believed by many 
that the Greek interchange of vor^p : dpnningp, Aor^p : imrmp, etc, 
is a sufficient indication that this too Is due to accentual conditions. 
Others reject this absolutely, either on the ground that the histor- 
ical evidence is conflicting or that it is in itself improbable that 
even a pitch accent should have any such marked efiect on the 
quality of vowels. The suggestiou of Baudouin de Courtenay, 
L F. IV 53 ft, that the variation depends on the character of the 
following consonant, the o representing a depalatalization of the 
«, is perhaps fully as plausible on physiolt^cal grounds. But 
the attempt to bring the actual facts even approximately into 
harmony with it would lead to results calculated to overawe even 
the boldest glottogonic speculator. Take, for instance, the char- 
acteristic variation of e : between present and perfect, i. e. 
"bhere : *&ebhffra. One would assume, perhaps, that the follow- 
ing consonant was palatal or not according to the character of the 
following vowel, that in the present the palatal r was generalized 
from forms like *bhereto, and in the perfect the non-palatal r from 

The relation of ^ : ^, H : H, etc., has been a much agitated 
point within the last few years. The idea has been in the air for 
some time that the origin of the 'Dehnstufen' or lengthened 
vowels was to be sought in a kind of compensatory lengthening 
consequent upon the reduction or loss of the vowel of the follow- 
ing syllable. The most serious attempt to formulate a law and to 

.y Google 


exeiii{dtfy it in the various cat^ories is that of Streitbcrg, iq a 
paper presented at a meeting of the American Philological Society 
at Chicago in 1893, and appearing in its final foroi in I. F. Ill 
305 ff. This treatise, which in any event must be recognized as 
'epoch-making,' has been subjected to a valuable criticism by 
Bloomfield in a paper read at the meeting of the American 
Philological Association at Philadelphia, in December, 1S94, and 
now printed in vol. XXVI of the Transactions of this body. In 
spite of Bloomfield's well-taken objections, the writer has a stroi^: 
conviction that Streitberg's main idea is correct and that the loss 
of a mora in a following syllable has been a most important factor 
in the production of the lengthened vowels. It is a theory which 
is perfectly rational on a priori grounds, and no other such has 
been offered. If it is true that the historical evidence is not so 
unmistakable as Streitbcrg in his zeal would have it appear, and 
if the theory leaves difficulties unsurmounted, yet this does not 
seem to be sufficient ground for rgectiiig it in lolo. It appears to 
me that a theory which deals with such a remote problem cannot 
be expected to meet all the requirements which we demand In the 
case of a more tangible phenomenon. But — for the same reason 
we cannot accept such a theory with the same degree of security. 
Extreme scepticism is preferable to the attitude which raises such 
a theory too hastily to a dogma. To my mind it is premature to 
assume that this mora-compensation was the sole factor, and that 
all instances of lengthened vowels must be explained on this basis. 
Aside from the analogical influence of words formed from the 
so-called heavy roots, which ceruinly must be reckoned with, 
who shall assert in the case of such a remote problem that there 
were no other purely physiological processes of lengthening; for 
example, the compensative lengthening of the kind observed in 
historical times as attendant on consonant reduction and loss (is 
from ens, etc.) ? It is not necessary to suppose that there was 
only one factor. There may well have been several. 

And, fiirther, confining ourselves to the principle of the 'Moreo- 
ersatz,' it does not seem to me that we can regard as final Streit- 
berg's or any other exact formulation of the law. Streitbcrg 
restricts the lengthening to accented short vowels in open syllables. 
But -even under these conditions it is not universal. Bloomfield 
points out that the continued existence of I. E. bhdrO'S {^ip»i)< 
which is supposed to have changed to SAors (0<*p), is unaccounted 
for. And probably every one who has read the article carefully 

.y Google 


has felt this difficulty (cf. also Michels, I. F. IV 60, who suggests 
a confusion brought variously accented forms). The 
Sanskrit dissyllabic forms like cdrilum, bh&viium. etc., would 
have no right to exist under a strict interpretation of Streitberg's 
law. It is clear that ix? and tx, which we may distinguish as 
uncontracted and contracted forms, do exist side by side, and 
that the development of lx> to ix must have taken place only 
under certain conditions which subsequent I e veilings have 
obscured. It is quite conceivable that the intervening consonant 
played a rdle; for example, that the lengthening was effected 
only through the medium of sonorous sounds. That is, ii>, ih, 
etc., became H. H, etc., but it>, igi, etc., remained. Then ei9 
and it arose respectively by analogy. 

A word as to 'dissyllabic roots.' . I believe that no one can 
compile the characteristic formations of Sanskrit roots in final i, 
», r, tn and n, as the writer has done for his own satisfaction by 
the aid of Whitney's Roots, without being convinced (with 
Kretschmer, Bechtel and many others) that de Saussure was fully 
justified in assuming a specific relation between the long weak 
forms and the 'udatta' roots of the Hindu grammarians. The 
parallelism of bhutd-s : bkdvilum, puid-s -.pdvitum, Kuta-s : h&vl- 
tave, iln^d-s : karila, firnd-s : (dritos, cirn&s : c&ritum, jdld-s : 
jdniios, kkat&s : khdnitum, daihtd-s : damiiA, kdThid-s : kamiti 
and others cannot be ascribed to chance. In its relation to the 
weak bha- the unit of the strong form is bhavi-, not bkaa; I. E. 
bhev^, not bhe^ ; and if bha is the root in its weak form, then 
bhe^y is Iht root in its strong form. Roots are only abstractions 
differing for different periods, and it is evident that for the period 
in which the variation of strong and weak forms arose the proper 
abstraction is *bkeu9, giving us a 'dissyllabic root.' This has 
nothing to do with the question of ultimate roots. It is not at all 
inconsistent with the preceding to suppose that the s of *bkt^3 is 
really a suffix. And to me this is extremely probable. The 
monosyllabic forms like bkeu- cannot be from bheu-», since this 
would, according to Streitberg's theory, give bkiu. We have 
rather side by side *bheit and *ihev->, the last being a unit in its 
relation to bha-} 

' It would be more luit&ble to speak of diaiyllahit /emu ef rveti than of 
diufllAbic Toota. For it !> entirely erroneous to suppose that we can divide 
toot* *harpl; into dittjlUbic and inoDOS](llBbic. In Sanskril, where the 
distinction is clearest, the best criterion is the presence or absence of t before 

Id b, Google 

Tigwt iiasr^-Iacic mflT'lmns 'ante aaralri za it, i^ etc, in 
^leraiiaCRa :c ::ie j'.« j-rafg anr aklM»i» to X Sis point is: 

A 3ir*j<tr sieSLoo » whunna wt kcve aot ao recognize aootber 
axcncxd r.m <:«' Sss^^lstu: rzioa 3X r^ xccfa-dscnsscd type 
wsJx. a aoA. ^og ir:oei s. £. S::. /'A. GA. w^i^ Lat. /<f , etc). 
Erj a a nic i ^Tpcxacaia >^' «i*«j^ / ; Bid « add«d to tbc weakest 
fccai ---t iie root ":. ^fi-e: <£. alxj K i g ta>Li; iCr. K- Z. 31, 404) is 
viriuys tfr.ube tae s^pIoL Ba. jc cbe saise time, few schcJus 
am XMt b> rvabt the jczrencu t^ac ibe BlTfipate or^in is to be 
K>c^3u ocjC is tbe a(ic:n>:c oc a arv *i*™*«* bat in a phooeiic 
(ieYei<jpracst of the disrHkhic tooc-sbrm panl!«l to that which 

Ihe verbal »'**■■' -lb' >md Msj« jjJ dw wiii> lafti -^r.; bal cren kctoc 
fptrvuB^Ir %bA tide by Biic Ssfaa vi:a aad wc&oil [be i. !■ lacli om the 
claMi&cUicia tt like Hi«ii» tn«i»-«raM » af:a artnuaiy. >*or czupple, id 
■ cLutel u uiKlsna ia i^:XK al mdji^am beside ■!?— . both fnm tbe nmi 
fetuA. while jai u sialti ia %piic <d iJiiaai beside trf'ti^i. In the cue •>! 
ttdrUmi : tOrud- besdc itdrtmm : AM-, they set sp l<ra roots, ■ Of i''*^- 
p«eiei>I ttrm^m, aoodaEU, nd m ^. p*c*eM ttnima, ndUt*. Cf. >ln 
KreftcbaieT. K. Z. 31, 395. If wc lake asy other otcfor; of fonns ibe 
confai^'w ii {Tcoer- In tbe fatnre tbe dUsrIUbic fan ii (enenliied in the 
ca«c of root* in fina] r (c. £■ tarifydti 10 iitrtam as well as rarifjdti to frfriAn)). 
■od ippean in teretal roots In -m and -m tbe iBfioiliTC of which shows the 
moniHTlUbic form (kamity4ti lo k^mtum, gamitydli to frfMftrw). Tbe puiiie 
show* a ditlioction in the ate of mots in -r (irifAr : ir(i<-, Urttim, but 
kirydti : ktrnd ; ilriydu : itftd-, rtdrtmm, bat ittrjati : tOrwi-, j t ii itm m ), while 
there is none in the cue of roots in i and m if^tjMt : frmtd-, frWm u well u 
ihojidu : iliat4-, ihavilum). In the d«ideraii»e of all roots in -»', -«i, -r, ■■ 
and -M [he dissyllabic form is generaliied. That is, we always have cither 
•a^, -aii, etc., or tbe corresponding weak form I, Ir, etc.; cf. ciHfa-, (Ufriit-. 
dUhiT^-.jigSrua-, etc. (Whitney, Skt. Gram., §im8). 

The inBeclioa of the singular of the j-aoriit with its nnifonn T[ddhi rtsis 
also npon a general iialioo of tbe diEijllabic form. Id drdntiam, etCn ')>* 
Vfddhi is probftbly anBtogio! 1 cf. Streitberg, I. F. Ill 396. Tbe nuU in ibe 
middle is normal. But in roots ending in i, u and r the original typel mil 
have been: t) dissyllabic formation dnaiian : 'dt^fi, a) monosyllabic ^fuf* ^ 
*dn{^. In the singular the dissyllabic form was generalized. In the plural we 
have for rooti in r usually the short weak form ; e. g. di^ti, somelimes Ike 
\aag it dlHrfiia. In roots inv, tthit monosyllabic type was losL We hi** 
•llhei da* in niitfaAi, or mote usually tot a, which has taken tbe place of A'; 
cr. alto Johansson, K. Z. 31, 509, and abore, p. 370. 

.y Google 


results in the strengthened forms eu,ii, etc. Certain it is thai, 
though there is more often no ablaut change, wealc forms are not 
infrequent, and these regularly with the long weak grade ; as, for 
example. Ski, funds beside fvdtrd-s, hald-s beside Av. zbdiar, 
jUd-s beside jyasyaii, jd-n&-ti (but jnd-td-s) beside jndium, 
stt-Mtd- (but slyd-nd-s) beside slyd-ya-te, and others. 

Of the various theories advanced to explain the phonetic 
process resulting in v-.pli, etc., that of direct metathesis, revived 
by Micbels, I. F. IV 5S ff., seems to me the least satisfactory. 
Not so much because no hint is given as to the condidons under 
which this metathesis took place, for in such remote problems 
one cannot expect anything approaching a strict demonstration. 
But admitting the metathesis, the vowel -variation is not accounted 
for. We might have ie from H and (d from di, but id, if derived 
from di, would belong to the n-series, which is not the case. 
Well-known examples like ja (Lat. idnua), ptd (Grk, mnj-oofuiO. 
tr& (LaL in-tra-re), etc., belong to roots of the ^-series {ei, pei, 
ter, etc.), and I do not know of a single instance in which the 
simple root -form is of the a series. 

The explanation advanced by Bechtel, Hauptprobleme, 190 ff., 
i> iax more plausible. As Streitberg operates with a development 
of pile to pel, so Bechtel supposes a development of peli to p/e, 
bluii to pa, supporting it by a reference to the existence of ru 
beside eru. in pur^p : (pv«, etc. (Frohde, BzB. 9, 122 ; cf also now 
Schulze, Quaest. Epic. 317*). In the same way he explains /W 
ixoraptii ( accordance with his \'\KV,peta). Again, a dis!>yl- 
labic root with final o might appear as a monosyllabic form with 
final 6 (cf. SMpi : Lat. nomen, Skt. ndma) ; but in the majority of 
forms of the type gni (ytw^t, Lat nStus) the is the result of 
direct ablaut to i or d. The strongest argument for Bechtel's 
theory is the fact that it accounts for the agreement between the 
monosyllabic and dissyllabic forms in the quality of their vowels, 
an agreement which is too marked to be attributed to chance.' 

The long weak forms also demand some further consideration. 
It is beyond all doubt that i and u are often the result of contrac- 
tion of I +^ and u+/. This is evident enough, for example, in 
Skt. ipsdmi (desiderative to dp), which must represent *i-3p-sd, 
1 belonging to the reduplication, 9 to the root. And the paral- 

'Thii did not eicape the notice of de Saaasure (cf. Sfatime primilif. 271), 
who. however, considered the Greek fonni u weak, like Skt. Ir, .d, -tMi; cL 
below, p. 380 1. 

.y Google 


leUan or iMe : dk? suggests that tbe weak form of HOi was 
originaUy dhA, iben with cootractioii ^ (Skt d/a-f£'s). C£ 
especially Kretschmer, K. Z. 31. 380 (t; Bartholomae, BzB- 17, 
13a But tbe contraction has not always taken place. It is 
necessary 10 recognize uocootracted weak ibnns n. P and «, ift. 
Such a form is assumed by Kretschmer and others in explanatioD 
of tbe Greek nomioaiive sti^ular in w := SkL I {^pouoa = SkL 
bkdranli) and the neuter plural forms like rpu. Moreover, there 
is a very considerable number of roots showing an ablaut ii:n 
and at : ^ ; cC Per Persson, Wunelerwdterung, 1 17, and esped- 
ally Wood, * Reduplicating V«bs in Germanic,' Germanic Studies 
of the Uoi\-ersity of Chic^o. II 27 d; Brugmann, I. F. VI 89 ft' 
A scheme embodying these additional and less cerUin points is: 

WetJL Strong. 

• "In 

Thus far we have not dealt with roots containing a liquid or 
nasal, and so have avoided the subject of the 'nasalis sonans'aiid 
'liquida sonans.' Thanks to the investigations of Brugmann and 
Osihoff, the representation of the (short) weak form of such rooB 
in the several Indo-European languages is dear.' Whether or 
not in the parent speech these weak forms were actually syllabic 

' It is true that most of the verbs in questioD are aunmed lo belong 10 oat 
of tbe h«BT7 abUnt series. Bat ai fiu- u the w«ak form ii concerned, it miku 
no diSerence whether the high grade ei. e^'u ori|[inal or the result of leDEdi- 
ening. Not is it possible to draw a sharp line betweeo original and secondtiT 
length. It is only rarely that wc have tbe means of applying the criterion of 
accent -quality suggested by Streitbei^. The Gnat consonants of the moO 
referred to are 'root increments' (e. g. *ji;(nW, cf. BragmaDn, 1. c, p. 93).>(i 
there would be no objection from the side of Streilbeig'i theory (on the gtoaad 
of position in a closed syllable) to regarding the length of the diphthongs u 
secondary. In the cases where an ablaut form ti or ti eiiits beside H and J> 
(cf. Per Persson, I. c, 117), there is a certain probability in favor of the light 
series, just as where we 6nd t beside i (Slreitberg, I. F. HI 305), Bat indi- 
vidual iraasfers are of coarse always possible. 

' For the elaboration of the theory of a second representative in all the I. E. 
languages, we still await the long-promised work of Osthoff (cf. H. U- V, 

.y Google 


liquids and nasals — that is, physiologically parallel to i and u — is 
a question of minor importance, yet interesting enough to attract 
a considerable amount of discussion. Following Bechtel's rejec- 
tion of the nasalis and liquida sonans, we have now J. Schmidt's 
long-promised attack on the 'Sonantiker" with Bnigmann's 
reply in the Literarisches Centralblatt. And the recent meeting 
of the Central Modem Language Association at Chicago has 
brought out two papers on the subject — one by Prof. Karsten, of 
Indiana University ; the other by my colleague, Prof. Schmidt- 
Wartenberg. To my mind the question is too fine a one to be 
decided on historical grounds. The forms in question can be 
explained equally well on the basis of I. E, '«, V, or «, j-. The 
advocates of the latter find their chief justification in the greater 
simplicity of their view and the parallelism with t and u. Their 
opponents retort that the sounds cannot be parallel physiolog- 
ically, and that simplicity should he sacrificed to accuracy. 

The experiments made by Dr. Schmidt- Wartenberg on the 
Rousselot apparatus are very interesting.* He is able to demon- 
strate that the pronunciation of a syllabic / is perfectly possible ; 
for example, that // may be pronounced in such a way that the 
articulation of the / begins immediately after the explosion of the 
p. For the nasals the case is somewhat differenL A real syllabic 
M may be pronounced by itself or after an homogeneous sound. 
But after a non-nasal mute the articulation of the nasal does not 
begin immediately, but a distinct vowel element inevitably inter- 
venes. For example, the German beriitenen is pronounced 
deril'n^, not beril^nn. Cf. also Seelman, Bechtel, Hauptpro- 
bleme, p. 136, note. But it is also impossible to pronounce a 
consonant nasal preceded by an heterogeneous mute without an 
intervening vowel. That is, if we must write Cn as the weak 
form of ten, so we must write I. E. g'no {Skujnd, Grk. y»5). It 
seems to me, then, that this intervening vowel is something which 
we can ignore, in the same way that we ignore dozens of other 
minute physiological points. 

I abide, then, by the designation ^, r, etc., as simpler on 
account of the parallelism with t, m, and as being a fair represen- 
tation to the eye of what was at least the closest possible combi- 
nation of vowel and consonant elements — so close that when the 
two came to be separated, the vowel sometimes appeared after as 

iKritik d. SonuilcDtheorie. 

'Cf. now thii volume of the Jouniil, p. I17 ff. 

, Google 


veC as b rfj fe tae ccosooaBt (Gifc. a^ ^X' ^i>d, moreover, was 
not al-van lac saae in tbe case of Uqnids as in the case of nasals 
<Lal. -*r. ixa -tm , 

A pcacjcal &:£Kjixj in the nse of the desgnatioii *m, V, etc, 
appears vfaen vc mm to the secood or loi% weak grade. It is 
not 'Sk£.y that anr aoe viH foOov Bechtd in assaming that the 
leogtb beCooged to tbe caDsottantal element alone and writing 'ii, 'r, 
€uu, and •«. ^ is also oojectiooalide. tbougb Tor other reasoDS than 
those which caused BechMl to reject this rcfMesentation. It would 
be better to write 'n, 'r, but this only shows the closeness of the 
ooonection, so that, aAer all, ^ ^, etc., remains the simplest and 
most coosemtire method of indicatii^ tbe grade which is parallel 
to t, w. But we have now arrived at a question of alu^ether 
more practical intpoftance — namely, the representation of thii 
long weak grade in the several languages. HiibsGhmaon and 
Brugmann have been berated more than once for setting op 
L E. long syU:U>ic liquids and nasals, and foUowing this with a 
statement that tfaor representadon in the various languages was 
not clear, as if appearing to know more of the parent-speecb 
than of the historical languages. But this paradox is m a 
sense true. For, however it may be designated, no one doubts 
that in the parent-speecb there existed a long weak grade 
which is related to r, g, etc (or 'r, *n, etc), in the same way 
as tt, 1 to u, i, and which appears in Sanskrit as ar, tr, 4 or ah. 
And yet, as to the appearance of this grade in the European 
languages, there has been great discrepancy of opinion, aod, 
especially as regards Greek, there is still the widest divetgence. 
One may of course speak simply of the European correspondeols 
of Skt. ir, ur, etc., but it is perfectly legitimate and in accordance 
with our use of hypothetical ground-forms as convenient symbols, 
to speak of I. E, r, 3, etc., or, if one prefers, as *r, *n, etc And 
in this sense they will be used in the following brief discussion. 
Let us begin with the liquids r and ^ They appear plainly In 
Sanskrit as tr and ur, with the same quality of vowel wluch 

' Thit it not lo be comp&ied with genuine metmtheiii, instance! of wbicb 
tre only iporadic. In the antevocalic position the combination of nwel toil 
conionnnt element was natoralljr not so close, and the designation *m, 'n is 
perha)]! preferable lo n'ff, r'0, etc. (cf. Bmgmann, Grd. II. p. 920^ note; 
llechlel ii of coarse right that it cannot be the same as ^iw), thotiE'' ''" 
difference i> onlj on paper. On accoani of the iaherenl consonantal elemeat 
no glide sound parallel to the i of -ijft- is necessary. One might write tiraply 

.y Google 


appears in the weak fonn before vowels (Jra, ura) and which 
was also inherent in the Hmdre of the f , as shown by its subse- 
quent development. Id Iranian we find ar corresponding to Skt. 
ir, ar and ir, ur before vowels, while for Skt. r appears a sound 
which is written at" in the Avesta and appears as ur and ir in the 
modern dialects. For Lithuanian the combined result of the 
investigations of Fortuoatov, Bezzenberger and de Saussure is 
that r, /^appear asir,il (Baranowski ; Kurschat's )r, il) and some- 
times as t/r, i//, while;*, ^appear as ir, t? (and ur, u7?). That is, 
we may accept Fortunatov's comparison with ir, U, and Bezzen- 
berger^s with ur, ul, but with de Saussure (so also Streitberg, 
Hirt and others} hold that the characteristic difference between 
the correspondents of Skt. Or and f is the accent' and not the 
quality of the vowel. Whether or not we find any certain 
examples of ur, u?=\. E. r, (, it is reasonably certain that the » 
has DO exclusive connection with the long weak forms, but that 
we have a variation of « with * as in Sanskrit ur, ir as well as tfr, 
tr, and as in Slavic Ir, Ur (cf J. Schmidt, K. Z. 33, 384, note; 
Hirt, Der idg. Akzent, 140). This variation perhaps depended 
originally upon the character of the surrounding sounds. 

As ir, iu, etc, represent original ir, au (Bezzenbet^er, modi- 
fied by Streitberg), etc., in distinction from ef, aii = er, au, so ir, 
U may represent an earlier ir, U in spite of Becbtel, Haupt- 
probleme, 338. 

In Slavic precisely the same representation must be assumed 
for both r, /and f, ^ The Old Bulgarian orthc^aphy shows ir, 
U, sometimes Sr, &l, before vowels, and rl and rn before conso- 
nants. In spite of the great confusion in the use of fand li, the 
difierent treatment of preceding gutturals (Leskien, Handbuch, 
p. 27) and the -forms of other Slavic languages show that an 
ur-Slavic ar is to be recognized beside ir. The difference 

' The inlerchanee of accent in the voids of the lame root, as vi3ii : v(lii, 
noted by Beueitbei|!er, Bi. B. 17, atg, u an objection to thi» view, need* 
explanation. But il hai no more force in overthrowing the general rule than 
the corresponding interchange in the case of orieinal diphtbongs cited, I. c, 
p. 334. It ii clear thai in both cases there are instancei in which the inter- 
change of accent cannot be connected wilh conditions of the paren I -speech, 
but most be tpeciGcally Lilhaanian (or Baltic or Balto-SlaTic) and due lo 
some procetsei analogical or phonological not yet undentood. Cf. also de 
Sausanre, M^m. Soc. Hng. VIII, and add instances like mdrga-i : maf^Ju, 
tdila-i : tait&Ju, klaiti, 3d ig. pret. to tlautail 'hear' : klduti, 3d ^. pret. lo 
tUiuiu ' aik.' 

, Google 


between I. E. j-.Iaadf, ^shows itself only in the accent, of which 
there is of course no trace in Old Bulgarian. Cf. Hirt, Der i6g. 
Akzent, p. 136. 

For Germanic, Streitbers, I. F. VI 141, assumes, in contrast to 
the view hitherto held, that f, /appear as ur, ul without distinc- 
tion from f . ^ The comparison of the Lithuanian cannot be so 
absolutely binding ("der stiikte Beweis") as loi^ as some 
languages show a difierence of vowel quality in the representa- 
tives of r, I and f, ( respectively (Greek. LaL, Iranian). It is a 
question of historical evidence, and one must wait for Sireitbeig's 
fuller discussion to see what disposition be makes of the forais in 
ml, or hitherto regarded as representing f, I. 

For the Greek the most widely current theory is that I. E. r, I 
appear as a)>, «Jt (from ap, aX) and pm, \m. So Brugroann, Hiibsch- 
mann, Oslhoff and many others. J. Schmidt, K. Z. 32, 377 ff., 
denies the equation of op, oX with SkL ir, ur, but regards as the 
representatives of the latter not merely pa, Xm, but also pa, Xa and 
P9, Xti (CL I. c, p. 390}. Besides these he recognizes dissyllabic 
weak forms opa, oXa, etc; cC Pluralbildtmg, 364. Kretschmer, 
K. Z. 31, 400, admits only ofw, oXa, etc, as the equivalents of Skt 
IT, ur, etc., and sees in pm, X* and fA, Xa, etc, strong forms of the 
type treated above (I. E. pli, etc). Bechlel too sees in opa a 
weak form of dissyllabic roots, but not the exact equivalent ol 
Skt. ir, ur. The Sanskrit equivalent of apa is iW, while the 
Greek equivalent of Skt. ir he leaves undecided. With Schmidt, 
Bechtel and Kretschmer (c£ also de Saussure, Mgmoire, 267), 1 
regard nXn as the usual weak form of <Xa, but, like Bechtel, 1 do 
not believe that this nXa and SkL ir, ur are precisely equivalent, 
descended from the same Indo-European form. We have, 
rather, to set up here, as elsewhere, contracted and uncontracted 
by-forms ; cf. above on ) : 91, it. In Greek we ordinarily find the 
latter, in Sanskrit and other languages the former (cf. Grk. u 
= Skt I). But, as Bechtel, Hauptprobleme, 305, shows, the 
uncontracted weak form is not wholly unknown in Sanskrit.' 
And it is not likely that the contracted form is wholly wanting 
in Greek. So the question still remains as to the actual Greek 
equivalent of Skt. Ir, ur, etc. We find pa, pa and pi) (m, n 
and rti) in formations where the weak grade of the root might 
be expected : not merely arparii, but rXq-Tdc (rXa, cf. Dor. t^* 

' Bechtel's tulitd-t, which, as ibe participle of the canutive of luUyati. wooid 
have 1. E. (, not ', Taa.y be replaced by gilild'i, the classical bf-fonn K>tgln4-i. 

, Google 


Tdfioi) and iSXq-nJc, and in all three cases J. Schmidt, as already 
remarked, sees the equivalent of Skt. Ir, Hr. On the other hand, 
as Kretschmer points out, in all such cases we might have before 
U3 the strong form of the type pie, Skt. prd. As long as we have 
Skt. prd-id, drd-t&, jnd-id, in which rd, nd can only represent a 
strong form, and as even from the Greek standpoint, in cases like 
wra, mi, axf (vr^ofioi, irrufio, vj/itrm, vT^fia), the explanation as a 
weak form is out of the question, what guarantee have we that 
the same explanation does not hold for trrp^ris, etc.? None. On 
account of Skt. jndid, etc, every one sees the strong form in 
ynrri-i, -pitatM, etc. Why is not (TT/Minfr to be judged in the 
same way (cf. (rr/iw/ta : irrAfta), and ^X«-<rKo> like yru-o-ia? We 
must grant Kretschmer that in none of these verbal forms is the 
equation of pa, etc., with Skt. Ir, ur binding. On the other hand, 
whoever, like the writer, is convinced thai Skt. Ir, ar represents 
an I. E. monosyllabic weak grade, will hold to it that, at least in 
some of the forms in question, we have this weak grade, and not 
the pU-typi, But in which forms ? According to J. Schmidt, 
some of those in fw, pi; as well as fm. One might accept this in 
the sense that the variation in the strong foims sometimes affected 
the weak grade, but I believe that only one of these sound- 
combinations is the actual phonetic equivalent of Skt ir, f/r. 
And of the three, the probability is distinctly in favor of pa, \u — 
partly on account of individual correspondences like ffKv6-p6t : 
Skt. murdkan ' head,' and partly because of the strong probability 
that op, oX (from up, mX) are also to be recognized as equivalents 
of Skt. Ir, ar. In spite of the criticisms of J. Schmidt, the direct 
connection of ujpir-ir with Skt, flr^-an remains the most probable, 
and by the same explanation of the eX in ireXXijt (on the XX cf. 
Schulze, Quaest. Epic. 83) we avoid the supposition of vowel- 
assimilation, a phenomenon still insufficiently defined. 

For Latin, too, the current view that I. E, f, /appear as ar, al 
and rd. Id has not been overthrown. To be sure, the supposition 
that we have in Greek pa, Xu, but in Latin rd, Id, while enabling 
us to connect n-pMntr with slrdtus, makes it necessary to separate 
tKrfrit (= ^rXarcfc) from Lat. Idlus, But I do not feel, as Kretsch- 
mer does, that this^is'a serious objection. The appearance of (tX^v 
(Dor. iiKar), tX^oo^i, rirKiiKa, etc., makes the explanation of rXirrdr 
as a strong form of the pU-type a rational one, whereas in Lat. 
idtus the same does not hold true. The scheme for roots 
containing a liquid would then be: 

.y Google 


We«k. Stroog. 

r (Skt. f, Grk. ^i, /w) ^Igr 

f9 {SkL iri, Grk. apo) J ^V^^ 

F (Skt. ir, fir, Grk. op, p*) ] *'f 

The development of I. E. «, ^ is precisely parallel to that of 
?, / in Balto-Slavic, Latin and, probably, in Germanic, but 
different in Aryan and in Greek. In Sanskrit it is something of 
a question whether a or on {dm) is to be recognized as tbe 
normal representative. Tbe lacts are as follows: From roots 
ending in m we find only -dm or, by assimilation to following 
dental, -an (-orii in Whitney's transcription); as the participles 
Jkdthia-s, krdHUa-s, kldihla-s, ksafhia-s, edih/a-s, tdrhia-s, dathia-i, 
Mrdrhia-s, vdthla-s, fSrhla-s, frathia-s (Whitney, Gram., §955 a), 
and the ^a-presents (ct jiryatiy tamyati, damyati, caihyaiL, 
(rimyati, b/irdmyaii, kldmyati (grammarians also ^rdmyati, 
ksdmyaii). Similarly in the Avesta granto 'angry' to *gram 
(Lat./r««^, Goth, gramjan, etc.). Giving up the idea that gi 
{dgdm, Grk. t^*) is the weak form of gam (see now Brugmann, 
Grd. II 893), there is, I think, no example of d = ^ either in 
Sanskrit or Iranian. Bartholomae, Bz. B. 10, 278, cites, besides 
ahingaitfm to gam, kdts to kam, but it is likely that we have an 
Aryan id = l.E. id (Lat. cd-ru-s). From roots in final -n we 
find forms with a and dn, in the participles usually a, as jdU-s, 
Av. zdls, but also Skt dhvdnta-s to dkoan and Avestan zantc to 
satt ' know ' and ka^d to kan ' dig.' Among the desideratives we 
find Skt. JigAdAia-, mt-mdAia-, iiidAsa- (Whitney, Gram., §io3S 
£; the last is from the grammarians, but confirmed by ti-/diis*-t) 
and Av. vi-vrngka- (to Skt. vatt), but also vi-vd-sa- to van and 
si-fd-sa- to san, and Av. dhiidhyd, a noun -formation to *ii-id-^- 
= Skt. si-id-sa- (cf. Bartholomae, Bz, B. 10, 279). The only 
Sanskrit example of an inchoative with the long weak form is 
vdnchdmi to van. From the Avesta, Bartholomae, 1. a, quotes 
yAfd-, but no absolute credence can be giyentothea; cLjasa-, 
the regular equivalent of Skt. gaccka-. The d appears also in 
the na-present : Skx.. jd-nd-mi, Av. sd-n^n/i, O.P. a-dd-nd. Then 
there are various individual words which may contain n, as dii, 
dti'S,yttid (Brugmann, Grd. 1 208), etc., on the one hand, kdtlcana-s 

> Otherwise Bartholaniae, Grd. d. iran. Phil. I, gr49. 

Digitized by Google 


'golden' (Becbtel, Hauptprobleme, 220) on the other. In view of 
the exclusive or, to be perfectly safe, the predominating appearance 
of dm, an in derivatives of roots in final -m, and the very consid* 
erable number of instances of -an from roots in final -n, the expla- 
nation of the m and n as due to the analogy of the strong forms 
(Bnigmann, Bartholomae and others) certainly cannot satisfy us, 
whatever we may think of other attempts. The difficulty with the 
explanation of Kretscbmer (K. Z. 31, 408) and Bechtel (Haupt- 
probleme, 221) lies in the supposition of a phonetic development 
of an/ to di in the syllable preceding the accent, a process which, 
though already assumed on other grounds (Hiibschmann, Indog. 
Vocabystem, 86; Brugmann, Grd. 1 168), is at least doubtful 
(Victor Henry, Revue critique, 1887, p. 100; Bartholomae, K, Z. 
29, 556 : Brugmann, Grd. II, 317).' 

'Wackernagel's Allindiiche Grommatik, which came to band after thii 
ailicle had been sent off, contains a new and thorough discussion of this 
ipettioD. V. Bradke's article also, I. F. V 366 ff., has not been considered in 
the abore. The Tnateiial. as regards the verbal forms, i) essentially the same 
u ii presumed above. To the inchoative vdncAali Wackemagel adds the late 
iickati 'tear,' which Whilnej calls artificial, and *ldiiciafi, presupposed by 
Iditiama' ' sign ' : but, on the other hand, does not mention the Avestan forma 
YAtgrBH/B, which are important in such a question of chronology as he raises. 
The connection <A JSrd-t • lover' with ja/i^pA^ (so Leumann, v. Bradke, Wack- 
emtgeljand of Jdra-i 'wife' with the root iibn' conquer' (v. Br»dke, Wacker- 
aagel) ii important as showing d for n. But the connection of ddsd-i ' foe, 
iliie' with the root dam (Benfey, Wackemagel) is more than doubtful, in view 
of ddipt-t. V. Bradke rejects the theory of Kretscbmer and Bechtel as to the 
dcTclopoieDt of I. E. §■ but with tbero and de Saussure he maintains that the 
normal representative of I. E. ^ is dm (dn before /), except before r (and 
possibly n), where it is d. Wackernagel, an the other hand, like Brugmann 
and others, gives d as the normal representative of both ^ and ^, attributing 
ibe nasal in dd^Ud-i, etc., to the anali^ical influence of the strong forms. For 
Ihe first time, from the standpoint of this view, an explanation is attempted for 
the mie of classical Sanskrit that d is the proper weak grade of roots in -«(»)-• 
but in, d» of roots in -m{i)-. He thinks it merely a matter of chronology, most 
of (he forms belonging to the tn-roots having come into existence at a later 
period than the corresponding forms of the K-roola. " Die Tiefstufen derbeiden 
Giuppen von Veiben diffeiieren also nur darum, well zufillig die einen, die 
aaf -Mfi; ihren Tiefslufenlypus schon v. gebildet batten ; die anderen, die auf 
'■(1)-, im gansen ersE in nachvedischer Zeit mit Ausnahme von fnim(i)-, dat 
gerade v. schon die Neuerung annahm." But I cannot understand how the 
Mn.occarren<:e of a form in the text of the Rigveda can be so conclusive of 
its non-existence at that period. Considering, for example, the ten participles 
in -iikla-t from roots in -am; it is true that only one (friihla-i) occurs in the 
Rigveda. But two others (krSmla-i, fd^lta-i) appear in the Atbarva Veda, and 

.y Google 

In Zr^rx. -:xk:x s :ur icie siXBsraL. Bm^rmsns fac^ that i 
accKsci » H mna^ :iir is ^ ^ikvccc TTw^k. The ■• is ^7 
iMX^a. xitz 3111.7- 31:1: ZK rr;iimi».f -n ^K jnoa! iKEzScn. AnKX^ 
^JK T.trns I'-Ks iaan^ «!_ 3UE1 IK Knnc v£i:± are g t awat weak 
iumo. HUt mc -ensnsi^iiB nf =Dr ^^-ri-pB. For ■ tbcre b do 
vrioatvt -J. tarr ^iznimc- -mr-jutt jzxx i:c v beside n as if 

'J; :-. -Emt 7o=E w£ jarrt "111 imn" col-t nnoDons vithin the 
vxsJjsi f-t^r^tt^ Txe smcut *ftH-tn^ af j--.-.'ir»Kf to roots of 

e ^ccB ie*vicT«d u pncthiic 

e of (he Ijpc 

■ deodedlr u if tbc 

TE^ uxidenuL Tkc 

tec tku >]I tbe paiti' 

e ^e j;a( «cu torm, CEbibil -«A. nent J. 

I b? aa^ilir^ *"•— ■^- «'*"^-g'— T"^ ud I >B finnlT 00- 
; ^-=f K >uc :JJI thi»e (c^ajan froa de Saasssrt oa vbo 
: of phonetic dtTclopawBl 
an is :be rr^ — i>%a;r*ei aa* be ;be oac icasoa foi the coexutenM of -t 
Mfi -<iik. Oa Xh.\s '.am r>;3: I vooli hxt^b: Imtuirelf an cipliutioi 
lis 1^' *j> *.^^ of Rreud:sei i=d B«c^cl. bot bM BccrsiitatiiiE the unnp- 
(><e of » c'-inge ofii^io it W.iwij be ; n» «« (ke In j«-EsTope>n toand and 
the Arraa ^ :9 Jdtd-t :&rrE B^s: k2T« raisxA. it loae period > *OBDd id whid 
lh« aual elesen; was s:ill p^e^<est. bat ptaiif Teifaccd. In the eulf kzjta 
penrx!, fof euK^le. th< toosvU bit Iist« been ^ and d". The fnlthcT 
dcrel^paies: Bigii: depeni on the character of the foUoving coDtoout 
Itefote certain covocaBU :be nasal nosld be entirely lost («> petfaapi before 
r, u in ddrwi, etc.). befsrc otben nrtnld be strengthened (e. g. before palatalt, 
ai in viHekaH to iwn and i^kali to chI; and before still others the loon 
retemion would depend on the chancla of tbe nasal element, e. g. before A 
the bomogeneons ■ being las-., the * retained (jiU-t \ JOmld-i). The chiaee 
of et to it would not access i late tbe assamption that amt changed 10 dt. A 
few indiTidoal cases would remain to be eiptained by confnsion, as dksiiUi-t, 
A*, -himla- (= Ski. ii^ij-i). and some of the deiideiatiTei. (The one ATCstu 
eiample.Galh, »»fJw/*«J». agrees with Skt/r/tiiijatf, etc., rather thin with 
vivdiali and ntiiiaa'.) I wonid not Tonch for tbe exact formnlatior of the 
phonetic de»elopment gi^n, bat beliere that the tnie explanation mntt be 
looked for along some such line. 

.y Google 



The existence of 9 \a the ^-series has been demonstrated by 
Bartholomae, but I do not regard it as an intermediate stage of the 
weakening of *, but as belonging to the lengthened grade. For 
example, the a of Lat. saxum, assuming that the word belongs 
to secdre, is to be associated with the e of O.B. sika. Although 
the ablaut of the pet-type as given is exactly parallel to that of 
verbs in ei, eu, etc, yet the form which it actually assumes is 
quite out of line with that of ei, owing to the fact that the weak 
form is so generally replaced by the strong (nttni-t, Skt paktd-s, 
etc.). Moreover, in this type the quantitative ablaut e :i la 
especially frequent (Lat. sedeo, sedi, Goth, sitan, selum, etc.). 

For the ^-series we may make use of the same scheme, since 
all the variations there given actually occur; but I follow the 
view of those who believe that only 0, ?, e, and o are to be 
recognized as properly belonging here. Where we find an ^ it is 
not an actual intermediate stage of weakening od, but is either » 
affected by the quality of the strong grade or directly due to the 
interchange ofe:i\a the ^•series. The two types have so many 
points in common that they exert a mutual influence, and in many 
individual instances it is impossible to decide whether we have to 
do with the e- or the ^-series. 

The other two heavy series, the J-series (fi : 9 \ S : o) and the 
^series (0 : ? : a), present no difficulties. The ^series looks like 
an isolated relic, based perhaps on an interchange of : ^ in the 

The n-series cannot be disposed of so easily. There are many 
scholars who do not recognize it, who deny the existence of a as 
a primitive vowel and the 'normal' grade of any series. These 
scholars see in all examples of a a weakening of normal i.dotd 
— that is, tbey assume that it represents the same I. E, sound as 
that which others, for the express purpose of distinguishing from 
the ordinary a, designate as 9. All cases like Sya, Lat ago, 
uabo, etc, they regard as 'aorist-presents' of roots belonging to 
the (i-series. The ablest exposition of this view since de Saussure 
is given by Bechtel, Haupt problem e, 240 S. One may well 
admit that the line is hard to draw, and that in various verbs of 
the European languages which have been ascribed to the a-series 
there is equal or greater probability in favor of the J-series ; but, 

.y Google 


aside from tbe &ct that tbc nnmber (tf aorist-presents is thus 
raised oat of proponioo to tbdr actually attested existence in the 
^•series, we shall not be ready to give up completely the disdnc- 
tion of « and » tmiil some more satis£actory explanation of the 
Saoskrit distinctioa of a and i is fiimished. Becbtel supposes 
that tbe a. instead of i (for example in ^Mmi) is due to tbe accent 
which, as he assumes, has coom by transfer to fall on tbe root- 
syllable. But though a few instances like l^paie or girSmi (once) 
beside g irimi , fiUmbkami beside fiambkimi are found, such a 
transfer is the regular thing only where the weak form of the root 
has come to show (he same vowel as the great body of verbs of 
the type ^pm, aod so iaW under their inflaence, as g&cchdmi, 
ddfdmi, mdtMami, with a for original m. C£ Brugmann, Grd. I 
916. But ?, or Bechiel's a, becomes 1, and so would not invite a 
transfer of accent To assume that it became identical with 
Aryan a because of the transfer of accent is to put tbe cart before 
the horse. Moreover, even after accepting such a law, one is left 
with all the cases of unaccented a = European a, as bhakta-s, aji, 
malld'S, etc., to explain away by the analogy of accented fonns 
or of verbs of tbe c-series. I prefer, then, to abide by the disiioc- 
tion of I. E. a and 9, and of an a- and an d-series. In this or ihat 
case, of course, we may find a Skt. a beside d, where the European 
forms favor the heavy series. Individual transfers must always 
be reckoned witfa. 

Among the adherents of the n-series there is some difiereoce 
of opinion regarding its exact correlation with the ^-series. 
Hiibschmann and Brugmann give a: a as corresponding toe.t. 
Preferable is (be view of OsthofT and Bartholomae thai we have 
a I o just 33 e :o, and that the interchange of a : ij is to be 
compared to that of e : ^ in the ^-series. The scheme then would 

a/^ as e/a 

It is believed that the ablaut series as given include all the 
interchanges which have a claim to rect^nition as normal vari- 
ation in the parent -speech. In the individual languages it often 
happens that in evidently related words we find an interchange of 
vowels which does not coincide with anything to be found in 

^d by Google 


these schemes. But this is accounted for by the confusion 
between the ditTerent series consequent upon the existence of a 
form common to two or more series. This point of contact may 
be original or, more usually, the result of a phonetic development 
peculiar to the language in question. A few well-known examples 
may be brought together here for illustration. The fact that 7 is 
the weak grade common to the three heavy series, and that this 
7 is in the European languages identical with the a of the a-series, 
accounts for the existence of ; beside a, as Lat. igi beside ambages, 
O.N. ok, Lat. pigi beside compages. Dor. irayn/u, Lith. piekiu 
'strike' beside Dor. irXaya, Lat. pliga, etc. (cf Brugmann, I. F. 
VI 96). In Greek the development of ^, « tOoX.a has established 
a point of contact between the el-, ^n-types and the a- and 4- 
series; hence ^fo^t (Dor. ^^&tat, Pindar) to fiAs, Aqfofuii to 
idow (SoK probably = da^ to den%, Skt. dahf). Mod. Germ. 
gedeihan, Goth, \eika, fath, ]'ai&ani, shows a transfer from the 
«»-type (cf. O.E. gefungen) to the *i-type due to the develop- 
ment of e»g. Germ, ini to lA.' In Balto-SIavic the development 
of r, J, etc., to ir, il, etc., has occasioned the occasional appear- 
ance of ( in the pet-type. So after Lett, mina ' remembrance ' to 
meni there arose a Lett, siiia 'staff, rod' to Lith. stebiu-s "be 
astonished' (orig. 'stand aghast' or something similar). Forms 
in y Isyki-s 'stroke, time' to i-sekH 'cut into,' O.B. seka') might 
be due to an extension of the same process; but as they regularly 
accompany strong forms in e, they may have started from verbs 
in which e represents I. E. i from H (cL Grk. nino, Skt. pl-ld-s 
beside vam, LaL pd-iu-s, Skt. pd-na-s, etc.). Ctplysxtu, plyszti 
'get torn' to plesziu 'tear'; also pl&Usu 'tear' (Leskien, Ablaut 
d. Wurzelsilben, 338). In Sanskrit the development of I. E. j 
to a has caused some confusion between the type I. E. bhendh 
and the type pet or mad (a-series). Beside mddati occurs 
mdndoH, and in the perfect mamanda beside mamdda. Vice 
versa in mdnthali 'shakes' the nasal is probably a part of the 
root (Brugmann, Grd. II 994; Fick, Idg. Wtb.*, 283), but the 
perfect in the 6arly period is mamdika. The development of az 
to e has produced a root med 'fatten' (cf. Germ. Masf), from 
which forms in mid, as mimide, amidat, etc., are cited by the 
grammarians. The retention of the strong ablaut grade in the 

' For a Ui^e collection of Germanic exi.inple* see now Slreitberg, Ui^r- 
mauische Graniinalik, under the caption ' Reihenwechsel' (§105). 

.y Google 

;er%cr poradci&v^ka: s aCE3iBL s: :^ LE-^tff-npc (c£ above), 
^aa sesE «'«-*TM^ii'^ -c Tscts b. ■^■-» i^ «o*G b preceded by a 
WTAuui -acacie-s^Hommif tncuc imcsciB. So^ after tbe aiaiogj 
•zcp^ad-f. ac^ VCR vr-ni.^ ^lUxst-i zz syi^i caamst viddU-t 
tn ^yadi . 7«ss:^-.- s tms dnoe' — ■>■ -jm afs<-^ tor«f 'dvtU'), 
/7is.-i£^.- » /3« ■—»■■•■- fsfiBtaiK cs^ swr^^'S n> era/ (oMtiasl 
frtxSi^-t sc fvx^t . ami irr-rt 

- II, I „ rscMs. Casi. Dasuhc Bock. 

.y Google 


The long discussion of this subject has shown that the work, in 
form and in diction, is based on the works of Cicero, that there 
are in it many resemblances to the diction of Pliny the Younger, 
Quimiiian and Tacitus ; and that, owing to differences in style, if 
mitten by Tacitus, it must have been during or immediately after 
the reign of Titus. 

The extant MSS of the Dialogus, eleven in number, are all of the 
fifteenth century, and are copies of a MS of unknown date which 
was brought from Germany to Italy about the middle of that 
century. The majority of them contain, besides the Dialogus, the 
Gennania of Tacitus, and all but one have a Suetonius fragment. 
So varied is the arrangement of the three works in the MSS that 
there is not sufficient ground for a valid inference aa to the order 
in which they were written in the Apographon, and the possibility 
of a transfer in the MSS of the name of Tacitus from the Germania 
to the Dial<^!Us. However, considering simply the number of 
MSS in which the Dialogus immediately precedes or follows the 
Germania, the probabilities are against such a supposition. All 
that can be learned from the MSS is that some time previous to 
the fifteenth century, the Germania and the Suetonius fragment 
were detached from the larger works by the same authors, and 
were written, along with the Dialogus, in a MS from which the 
extant MSS have been derived. The number of these in no way 
affects the discussion of the subject, for the continued copying of 
a MS statement, whether it be right or wrong, neither proves nor 
disproves the original statement In the present instance all 
depends upon the MS from which the extant MSS were copied. 

The Apographon evidently ascribed the work to Tacitus. This, 
however, is not a proof of authorship, but only gives the subject 
of a thesis which remains to be proved. More works than one in 
reference to whose authorship the MSS evidence is as definite as 
it is in the case of the Dialogus, are now held by critics not to 
bdong to the authors to whom they are assigned by the MSS. 
Experimenters in both prose and poetry freely attached their 

.y Google 

I*-- issr-^-=r le — Tt-t.-r-nf^ as a proof of 

__i-^ j:^-^rxLTr-j&.' T'ltf dase vbeo tbe 
». • — ^ 3& :s= z:i^c««c :=apfww]iDg 

-.:=.-:i. rat — r-^r^ r TT" KxiescQts which 
; _.>T ■ -.; ^mi. BOL 31*: ^nusbed by 

:.^ J'/^g .T ji . — Tuswrcis addressed 
s^"-^ I. as rrrriern: :=q^es about 

- ^r^ m; jricsaa; soppUntiif 
-- s ii— vi^ it 3Cr::B: ct quklvis 
r ^ ;^^H 3a "m sisactely fiied 
■-- .- -■s^—; X ire*. E":s ihe ttHjurnl 

t-i-:-.. 3ir Ksl ^" Tadtos in the 
-, r-T!!; j - a - : i— Eubs IkKniQao.uvd 
,:- ^ : sitz ^w ris. I i) because 

•.^~ -i jiu Trr-^ 

:r ■ tbe p«b::catioo 

^-^^ ^nvrt-- 

TMl wxjrk <M" Qnin- 

1 -i r: ri 

:. ;> » the ideal 

t-ii-^' ?iea - 

•erScse cansidicnin 

~ T~ ::»; Y.c: 


-r -..-::-; XC :ia^ 

:=«, show that all 

w T'—.-^-is ■ 

■=* r«:i«d while 

=^- ^r^ ^'EOi: 

.ix «» Optimistic, 

, :r-^ K i(-ts.KL rvroiaan almost 

.y Google 


without Stint (see Peteraon, Quint. Intr. zi), merely shows that 
there was ample room, even iu that period of oratorical silence, 
for rhetorical work by any writer who would not antagonize 
imperial despotism. 

3. Fabitu Justus. — whom the work is addressed, 
was probably the friend of Pliny the Younger, and Consul Suffec- 
tus, in 102 A. O. If as fortunate as Pliny and Tacitus in official 
promotion, he would be about the same age as they, so that the 
date of bis birth may be placed about 60 A. D. However, the 
establishment of the exact date of his birth would be of no 
service, for we do not know whether the Diatogus was addressed 
to him as a student, answering some questions which had arisen 
while be was still at school, or whether it is a complimentary 
work addressed to him at a later period in life. If for the first 
purpose, it may be compared to some of the works of Seneca 
addressed to Ludlius. (See N. Q. 3, 1. i.) But if the work 
was written by Tacitus in 82 (?) A. D., he would not be recom- 
mended to Fabius by the prestige of his age as was the case 
with Seneca addressing Lucilius. More probability attaches to 
the second alternative. The Dialogus in form is imitative, 
everywhere showing the results of a careful study of the works 
of Cicero. The motive given for writing the Dialogus is the 
same as that for writing the Laelius. The words of Cicero 
(Laelitis i, 4), 'cum enim saepe irecum ageres,' are slightly 
varied at the beginning of the Dialogus, 'saepe ex me requiris.* 
The placing of a veil, perfectly transparent in the Laelius, over 
the personality of the author by representing the work as the 
recorded recollection of the conversation of men fitted for the 
task of discussion, is the same in both. The division of the 
remarks of Messalla into three parts is evidently fashioned after 
the presentation of the remarks of Laelius by Cicero. Both works 
contain a reference to the student days of the writers. So similar 
are the motives for authorship, as well as the form of presentation, 
that it is not improbable that the opening words of the Dialogus 
contained for Fabius a subtle allusion to the fact that he and the 
writer were a pair of friends to be compared to Atticus and 

The words describing Aper and Secundus, and the writer's own 
student days, are likewise capable of a double interpretation. The 
characterization of the two men is modelled after the characteri- 

.y Google 

I potto 

-JT»g =^ ae '—niB pa to death 

>.«. V~i.jE>T- atar wre been the 
;x -i 4..j—nc», A.-fiu3 vriteis an 
~ ITa: Ji^^Hsns r-3B :be wntiiq>s of 
' Tn-rtri:n n xs xxac oaj iodkalc 
->3 ML sa^^s^nad enimxte of lib 

.y Google 


power, or that his repeated assaults had rendered bim obnoxious 
to DomitiaD and his favorites, and that Quintilian, enjoying the 
favors of the imperialists, passed biro by for this reason. Where 
Dio obtained his information we cannot tell. Certainly not directly, 
just as he put it, from any Roman writer. The word ' sophistes' 
up to the time of Tacitus is rarely if ever applied to a Roman. It 
is used by Juvenal (7, 167) applied to declaimers, and several times 
by Gellius, referring to the old Greek sophists, and twice (17, 
5> 3: 3i> t) to Greeks of bis own day. In the Ps. Seneca ad 
Paulum, Ep. II, the supposed Paul calls Seneca ' censor, sophista, 
magister tanti principis,' a free useof the word corresponding to the 
use of it in later times among the Greeks, when the word returned 
into honor and was applied to rhetoricians and prose writers, and 
by Lucian to Christ (de Morte Pere. 13. Ill 337), to Socrates 
(Dial. Mort. XXI 3. I 421), and to Aristode (DiaL Mort. Xll 3. 
I 384). The word as used by Dio must be interpreted as it is 
used by the writers of the same age, and little can be staked on 
an account by a Greek who applies to a Roman a term freely 
used by the Greeks and by them applied to men to whom the 
term sophist cannot now be applied. At the distance of 130 years 
from the event described, Dio could easily be mistaken, from a 
Roman standpoint, in the application of tnMJiKrrit to a man who 
was both an advocate and a poet who recited his own verses. 

While tbe negative argument based on (he word aoifnirr^ fails 
to show that it was not the Matemus of the Diali^us who was put 
to death by Domitian, it must be admitted that the attitude of 
Maternus toward the government as staled by Dio corresponds to 
the attitude of the Dialogus Maternus to those in power. The 
cause of the dialogue was a gathering of the friends of Matemus 
to talk about a redtation of his 'cum oflendisse potentium animos 
diceretur, tamquam in eo tragoediae argumentosui oblitus tantum 
Catonem cogitasset.' Secundus advocates a remodelling, that the 
work might be' non quidem meliorem , aed tamen securiorem.' But 
Maternus is firm: 'leges quid Maternus sibi debuerit et agnosces 
quae audisti. quod si qua omisit Cato, sequenti recitatione Thyestes 
dicet' Settled hostility to tyranny is expressed by Maternus, and 
be satisfies at least that portion of the statement of Dio in which 
are given tbe reasons for his death. ' We must either accept the 
identity of the two, or bold, on purely hypothetical grounds, to the 
contemporaneous existence of two men bearing the same name 
and possessing the same psychological attitude toward tyranny, 

.y Google 

!i 'He -OBC :iiipactaiice if the 
Z'jL ?nieg. xn) can be 
■ mn^ dierejia oTHtos and 
..^-a lat >r-.T?3 i£ -=3i zm^ Ii is b^ that be 

.;. ^~ r- "Tif -3 Siie:. TTas i pasecnicd tfae 

11 3 girai by Tac. 
am icgressns est 

a panca et 
ti?- :» j.d. :a If nil' I for R^nlos, 
■■ "' ■— '•™- T^ cccdasioD of (be 
SR-r la :Tra=i«.c.44,5'patres 
:= :.^— int J^nn. .Msisere.' Instead 
r. -^^.c£l t «si u ^,111 a tniimph as 
_=s=-a. ai ZT'-al > 30.) ■niisw»S --k-'S^ :x s«tare, and in the case 

r,jc >?a 3tr ^nsu widi the etnpeitir 
c:.s .uv'C p-MC This b shown by 
.Ti ■nirst a tie D^'ogns, C 8, 18, 
^4. r. ^mc CLX^cass ac, d<wec liboit. 
: C-JSsiT-s 1—1 — » ^nnt reruntque 
-^TT r ■^'^'-^ .vHJLuda dil^iuitiir.' 
-^■z .'i r>.-i=.riia. Cri^Mis was high 
-- :r..Ti ^tnsirparns ... at cuidan 
.-.:= ~A=s4r: s^c abfurde lesponsuiD 
.'x:-£i>> T — : — pJHiit at the first 
:«T- ■* J.E : 3t iooor at the b^in- 
i. .-K tK --' '^-^ ovn friendship and 

>.■>;. -ca Wvviid not be materially 
t.r.-i*^ s. i^h booor is shown by 
.r:i; ,^:c»i^e neqoe seponere ac oe 

.y Google 


in minore quidetn honore habere sustinuit, sed, ut a primo imperii 
die, consortem successoremque testari perseveravit.' The friend 
of Vespasian and of Domitian, the possessor of vast wealth which 
he calmly enjoyed during their reigns, it is not at all improbable 
that he may have been a friend of Titus also, who, according to 
Suet. Tit. 7, 'amicos elegit, quibus etiam post eum principes ut et 
sibi et rei publicae necessariis adquievenint praecipueque sunt usi.' 
Titus, it is true, did punish informers, but long before this, Cnspus 
had risen to the rank of a gentleman, and was beyond the reach 
of the vigor of Domitian who said, Suet. Dom. 9, 'princeps qui 
delatores non castigat, irritat' The statements of Suetonius about 
Crispus, and the distinction clearly indicated between common 
informers and the friends of the emperor, are sufficient to show 
the untenability of the hypothesis of the temporary weakening of 
the power of Crispus under Titus. 

5. heoenU Admodum.— The words 'iuvenis admodum' used 
by the writer to designate his age at the time of the dialogue have 
a value in indicating something about the length of time which 
elapsed between the dialogue and the publication of the Dialogus. 
They are of little value in fixing the age of a person, as they are 
applied to ages from 17 to 24, and are no more definite than are 
the words ' young man.' They may be applied to a youth by any 
writer and at any time without reference to the number of years 
intervening between the timeof the writing and the period in the 
life of the man described. But when a writer is speaking of him- 
self the case is different, especially when he wishes to indicate 
the time between two events. The design of the writer was to 
indicate to Fabius something as to the length of time since the 
conversation took place. But when a man is in a certain period 
of life, a reference to the same period, modified though it be as in 
the present instance, contains but little information. If the writer 
of the Dialogus was a 'iuvenis,' his reference to himself was not 
definite enough to suit so recent an event, and at the same time 
k would be an entirely unnecessary statement to call the attention 
of a 'iuvenis' to the fact that the writer was a 'iuvenis' at a time 
when there could not be the possibility of a doubt as to the fact 
in the mind of the person addressed. The words are certainly 
superfluous unless the writer was looking backward from a later 
period in life. 

.y Google 

^ i: IE IS be bone 

t =:aiiQsd « :ie aost 'ab- 
L 3 rw iaesswi wii des- 
t IT i£K sbidi does 
r:^ Ts: r^ a :ie icp: of Domi- 
■=^- ?-:r- mi:: Ta^oB n^oiced in *e 
=^ =-^~~ * **-«■» »ra tbose imdcr 
=3sr- icE wBiaeiw aar have beco 
— — ~i B f-'^ :ie davuuion of te 
— ^C= LXTo: ir -rwz vars.— an answer 
c «:=n«: rr al ; a cui^ so radical 
^rmjSL Ii die jMt chapter of the 

■jLi. =r; s tec ML uecaie dbOEsioo (rf the 
—■^.-TTV --5c;rT !&:«sihttd>ac was still roam 
-: r--_c;cxir j^eDiikjgos. Did times so 
o? Hessatla 

igitized by Google 


(c. 38) gives a summary of the causes of the decline, and a part, 
if not all of them, were permanent. Quintilian found it necessary 
to discuss the effects of misdirected education. Pliny Ep. 1,5, 12 
says, 'est enim mihi cum Cicerone aemulatio, nee sum contenlus 
eloquentia saeculi nostri.' (Cf, Ep. i, 16, 3; 3, 20, 4; 6, 21, i.) 
The words of both Quintilian and Pliny indicate that the decline 
had not ended, and Tacitus expressly states that oratory under 
Domitian was dead. The freedom of expression allowed during 
the reigns of Nerva and Trajan must have been favorable to 
oratory, but men continued to be more and more dissatisfied with 
the productions of their own times, and by the time of Fronto had 
taken the most ancient of the ancients as their models. The 
incompleteness of the Dialogus discussion, the continuance of the 
adverse influences, the steady drift of literary sentiment toward 
the past, left room for discussion at any time a curious-minded 
man might turn his attention to the condition of oratory as com- 
pared with that of rhetorical practice. At no time would the 
question of Fabius have been more timely than during the latier 
part of the reign of Domitian when Quintilian was optimistic and 
Tacitus was silent. 

7. Reproduction from Memory. — An argument for the publica- 
tion of the Dialogus within six or seven years after the dialogue 
is based upon the statement of the author in reference to his 
intention of reproducing from memory a discussion that be had 
heard. If the writer was simply a recorder, discussion is at an 
end, for the entire question of authorship is solved. The Dialogus 
does not belong to the writer, but to the speakers. If Fabius was 
expecting a verbatim report of an earlier conversation, he would 
probably lose faith in the writer if the report was not written till 
twenty years afier the conversation. But if the writer was indeed 
the author of the work, be is to be judged, not as a mere reporter, 
but by bis artistic attitude to an ideal conversation, and in this 
judgment the question of the number of years between the hear- 
ing and the writing has no place whatever. It is a question of the 
use of literary forms of presentation, and not of the persistence of 
mental powers. In his use of a literary form, we must admit that 
the writer of the Dialogus could allow as much time between the 
dialogue and date of publication as Cicero himself bad done. 
While Cicero did not actualize his speakers, and could not subor- 
dinate himself to the forms of highest literary art, still he gave to 

.y Google 


later imiutors of his method, a model in which conversation was 
presented with an utter disregard of the length of time that it 
might be retained in memory. The Laelius is Cicero's account of 
a supposed conversation heard by Scaevola in 129 B. C, repeated 
by him in the hearing of Cicero in 88, and published by the latter 
in 44. In other words be represents that the recorded convetsa- 
tion had been retained for 85 years in the memories of two men. 

Plato, whose artistic skill none will deny, has in the Symposium 
three periods, but shorter than those of Cicero in the Laelius,— 
416 B. C, 400, and the date of publication between 384 and 372. 
See Hug, Symposium Einleitung 7. 9. 10. 

To a Roman acquainted with the Symposium or the Laelius, 
the placing of the conversation twenty years or even more in the 
past would not seem inartistic, and would have been accorded 
without question to the writer of the Dialogus. 

8. Age of Pliny and of Tacitus. — The only statement referring 
to the age of the writer is the one containing the words 'iuvenis 
admodum,' which might have been applied to any young roan at 
the time of the dialogue. The date of the birth of Tacitus cannot 
be determined. All the data by which it is sought to do this are 
so flexible that at the critics' pleasure it may be variously stated. 
But the exact determination of his age at the lime of the dialogue, 
taken by Itself, would not affect in any way the argument either for 
or against authorship by him, if it can be shown that the age 
of some other author, whose claims for authorship have been 
advanced, can be equally well described by the words ' iuvenis 

Pliny the Younger was a precocious youth. At the age of four- 
teen (Ep. 7, 4, 2) he wrote a Greek tragedy ; in 79 A. D. he wit- 
nessed the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius (Ep. 6, 20, 5, 'agebam enim 
duodevicensimum annum '), a detailed account of which he wrote 
some twenty years later at the request of Tacitus. A year later 
(Ep. 5, 8, 8) he began to plead in the forum, and when still youi% 
won renown as an advocate (Ep. i, 18, 3, 'eramacturusadulescen- 
tulus adhuc, eram in quadruplici iudicio, cram contra potentissimos 
civitatis atque amicos Caesaris . . . atque adeoilla actio mihi aures 
hominum, ilia ianuam famae patefecit'). If the diali^ue took 
place in 77 A. D., Pliny might have been present and listened 
intelligently to the discussion. He might have written the Dia- 
logus under Titus or during the first years of the reign of Domi- 
tian, admitting the possibility of publication at that time. 

.y Google 


Pliny compares himself and Tacitus, Ep. 7, 20, 3, ' Erit ranitn et 
insigne duos homines aetate dignitate propemodum aequales . . , 
alterum alterius studia fovisse. Equidem adulescentulus, cum 
iam tu fama gloriaque floreres, te sequi, tibi longo sed proximus 
imervallo et esseet habericoncupiscebam.' The first words of the 
comparison indicate but a slight difference in the ages of the two 
men. Special emphasis, however, has been laid on the words 
Umga sed proximus iniervallo. When Pliny sat down to write the 
description of the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius he gave a literary 
shudder, and quoted Vergil, 'Quamquam animus meminisse hor- 
ret, incipiam.' In the same way, in comparing himself with Tacitus 
he goes back to Vergil (Aen. 5, 330) for the phrase which he 
applied to himself. The whole account of Vergil is exaggerated, 
and to take Pliny's complimentary quotation of Vergil's words as 
the statement of the exact, or even approximate mathematical 
relation of their respective ages is to step outside of the bounds 
of valid literary interpretation. 

There still remains the one statement, 'adulescentulus, cum iam 
tu fama gloriaque floreres,' as an indication of the difference in their 
ages. Tacitus was married in 78 A. D., to the daughter of Agri- 
cola, an indication that he was already a man of some note. At 
this lime Pliny seems to have been with his uncle, and so con- 
tinued till the following year when he began active public life. 
The position of Tacitus as son-in-law of the powerful governor of 
Britain seems to form an adequate basis for the words of Pliny. 
So far as these data are concerned the difference in the ages of the 
two is lefi undetermined. If we assume that Tacitus was x years 
older than Pliny, we can assume that Pliny wrote the work x 
years alter the date assumed for Tacitean authorship. The condi- 
tions of the problem enable us to shift the date for Plinian author- 
ship as often and just as far as the difference between the ages of 
the two men is shifted. The possibility of this may be denied since 
it might throw the date of publication into the reign of Domilian. 
The reference to Vibius Crispus in the Dialogus may stand in the 
way of this, but if our view of the relation of Titus to the leading 
informers is correct, authorship was as safe for Pliny during the 
first years of Domitian's reign as it was for Tacitus during the 
reign of Titus. But Pliny had opposed the friends of the emperor 
after 81 A. D., the year in which he began pleading, and might in 
a literary work put into the mouth of another man an attack on 
others of the same class. 

.y Google 


II. — Language and Style of the Dialogus. 

The language of the Dialogus is that of the rhetorical schools 
of the day, and as such bears a close resemblance to the languq;e 
of Cicero. Vogel says, 'Elocutio est omnlno QuintUiaaeae PlinJa- 
naeque quam Tacitinae longe similior.' So strikinf; are sotne of 
the resemblances of the vocabulary to that of Pliny and Quintiliao 
that claims have been put forth for both as authors of the work. 
These arguments are based on those features of language and 
style which are common to the Dialogus and the worlcs of the 
others. All the arguments are fortified by a large number of 
parallel references. But there were not two authors, and argu- 
ments based solely on these resemblances must be set aside. The 
correctness of the rejection is shown by the differences between 
the language of the Dialogus and that of the other works. But 
if the arguments based on parallel passages in the Dialogus and 
in Pliny or Quintilian do not prove identity of authorship, and 
dissimilar phenomena utterly overthrow ailments for it, the 
same conclusion must follow if we obtain similar results in com- 
parison with the works ai a third, a fourth, or any number of 
authors. The claims for Tacitus must as surely be rejected as 
those for Pliny and Quintilian, unless it can be shown that the 
correspondences and differences between the Dialogus and the 
works of Tacitus must receive an interpretation which cannot be 
reasonably applied to the results obtained by other comparisons. 
Judging only by parallel passages, the ar^ments for Pliny, Quin- 
tilian and Tacitus seem strong, but they indicate nothing more 
than that any of the three might have written the work. Dissimi- 
Unties in diction which are accepted as conclusive against the 
claims for Pliny and Quintilian, must be accepted as conclusive 
against Tacitus, except under the condition mentioned above. 

Given a mass of resemblances and differences between the Dia- 
logus and the works of Pliny, Quintilian and Tacitus, the inter- 
pretation in the case of Tacitus is supposed to be modified by the 
element of time. Given a period of fifteen years between the date 
of publication of the Dialogus and that of the other works of 
Tacitus, this will modify the interpretation of the material exam- 
ined. But the writer of the Dialogus has such elements in bis 
work in common with the works of Tacitus or Pliny that after 
fifteen years of training he may develop into either a Pliny or a 
Tacitus. The style of both of these differs widely from the style 

.y Google 


of the writer of the Dialogus, and when time is demanded for the 
development of the style of Tacitus, it must be borne in mind that 
nearly as manyyears must be allowed Plinyfor a similar develop- 
ment between the date of publication of the Dialogus and that of 
bis Epistles. 

I. Theory of Genetic DevelepmetU. — In the case of Pliny we do 
not have distinct masses of literary work which enable us to test 
the movement of his style during his career. In the case of 
Tacitus we do, and certain changes in his style are pointed out. 
Given certain lines of development, can they be traced backward 
till they point to an undoubted origin in the Dialogus? The 
affirmative answer to this is found in the theory of genetic devel- 
i^ment propounded by Wolfflin. There seem to be certain 
well-marked tendencies in different directions. Some phenomena 
of the Dialogus become more and more frequent in the historical 
works of Tacitus. Others characteristic of the Dialogus suffer 
atrophy and are lost 

Connected with this theory, or rather antecedent to it, is the 
hypothesis of the psycbolt^cal changes in Tacitus caused by the 
horrors witnessed under Domitian. Let us consider the hypo* 
thesis. Tacitus left Rome in 89 A. D. and did not return till after 
the death of Agricola. Accepting as the record of an eye- 
witness the account given in Agr„ c 45, of the last years of Domi- 
tian, the experience of Tacitus must have been confined to three 
years. He was then a man thirty-five or forty years old. His 
education had long been finished. The outlines of his form 
of expression must by this time have been fixed. Then came 
three years of the Domitian horror, the clouds cleared away and 
peace and freedom of speech returned under Nerva and were 
continued under Trajan. The last years of Domitian could not 
undo the educational equipment which he had in 93 A. D. New 
elements in his style must come to it through the psychic forces 
affected by the horrors which he had seen. Granting that there 
was aroused in him a new attitude to tyranny, it is assumption to 
say that the change was so pervasive, so persistent, that it affected 
his attitude toward any other social or political forces than the 
ones which furnished the occasion for the change in his reflective 
attitude. Tacitus himself indicates this when he states at the 
beginning of the Agr. and of the Hist, his appreciation of the free 
conditions under which he wrote. 

.y Google 


As an hypotbeais to account for changes in style, it maybe 
used in the case of Piiny as well as in the case of Tacitus. It has 
to do only with the emotional element in Tacitus, while the theory 
of genetic development has to do with verbal changes into which 
the emotional element has not been shown to enter, for a man 
actuated by intense hatred of tyranny would not be likely to pause 
and deliberate on the spelling of a word or the use of one com- 
pound for another. 

Among the best examples adduced as proof of this develop- 
ment are a) The displacement, in the later works of Tadtus. of 
eligere by deligere, ofiensa by ofTensio, cupiditas by cupido, 
deinde by dein. ¥) The recurrence of some Dialogus wordsonly 
in the smaller works of Tacitus, and with this can be placed some 
apparent reversions in the Annals to the form of statement in the 
Dialogus. c) The continuously decreasing number of synony- 
mous collocations. 

a. These examples are conclusive against any ailment based 
on them that Tacitus did not write the Dialogus. They are of no 
value in showing that he did write it. They are the prevailing 
forms used by the writers of the i^e. For Pliny and Quintilian, 
the Tacitean forms are unusual, while the Dialogus forms are the 
regular ones, and for this reason they form a stronger argument 
for them than they do for Tacitus, for whom tbey can be used 
only on the pre-acceptance of the validity .of the MSS title. It 
must be admitted that these lines of development run through all 
the works of Tacitus, but when they are traced backward they 
converge toward not only the Dialogus but other works as well. 
They show the possibility of connecting the Dialogus with the 
other works of Tacitus, but they show no more probability of it 
than they do of a connection with the works of Pliny or of Quin- 

b. The two phenomena stated in this division are only two indi- 
cations of one fact — the overlapping of the vocabulary of the Dia- 
logus by the vocabulary of the works of Tacitus. Every one of 
these contains expressions found only in it and the Dialogus. 
While there can be no exact classification owing to some differ- 
ences in textual readings, we have divided the words in the T>c 
Lex. (A — reliquus) into thirty-one classes to find out the number 
of words used in each work assigned to Tacitus, and the number 
which occur in two or more of them. Including a few participial 
nouns in -um, e. g. edictum, delictum, and factum, and a few 

.y Google 


participial adjectives, e. g. constans, praeatans, expeditus and 
expertus, there were in all 4669. The following statement gives 
a portion of the results : 

In A. 3890, H. 3200, Agr. 1395, Germ. 1282, Dial. 1405. 
Only in " 893. " 352, " 50, " 87, " 157. 

'* " A, and D. 89, A. and Agr, 63, A. and Germ. 92. 

There are more words found only in the Annals and Dialf^us 
than are found only in the Annals, the GermanU and the Agri- 
cola. This seems to indicate a reversion to the vocabulary of the 
Dialogus. But excluding the Annals, there are found in the other 
works of Tacitus all but 113 words of the Agr., 139 of the Germ., 
and 246 of the Dial. The larger number of words found only in 
the A. and Dial, is simp4y the result of the fact that when Tacitus 
wrote the Annals, 246 words of the Dial, and 253 of the Agr. and 
Germ, had not been used in any other of his works. The per 
cent, of the hitherto unrepealed vocabulary used in the Annals is 
less for the Dial, than for either of the other works. 

That this phenomenon is merely the result of accidental over- 
lapping can be shown in another way. Selecting 1405 words, (A — 
reliquus) from a continuous section at the beginning of the 
Panegyricus of Pliny, and arranging these and the words of 
Tacitus, excluding those found only in the Dialogus, the results 
in the 31 classes very closely correspond. With this substitution 
of the Panqryric vocabulary for that of the Dialogus, the number 
ibr each work was as follows : 

Only in A, 887, H. 335, Agr. 49, Germ. 92, Pan. 118. 
" " A. and P. 95. 

These correspond very closely with the numbers given above, and 
the correspondence is about as close throughout the thirty-one 
classes, the numbers given being fair representatives of them alL 
Inasmuch as the vocabulary of the Panegyricus when compared 
with that of Tacitus, exhibits throughout the same results as are 
obtained by comparing the vocabulary of the Dialogus under 
exactly the same conditions, the reversion theory is shown not to 
have a basis of fact. At the same time, as there are about the 
same number of words in the Panegyric section that are found in 
one or both of the smaller works of Tacitus, but in neither of the 
larger ones, the recurrence of some of the words of the Dialogus 
in only the smaller works of Tacitus is shown to have no bearing on 

.y Google 


the question of the authorship of the Dialogus. While complete 
comparisons cannot be made till the Lexicon is finished, still the 
masses compared are so large that there can be no doubt as to 
the character of the final results. They will surely show that the 
phenomena mentioned in this section are common to works by 
different authors, and that these occurrences in the works of 
Tacitus indicate nothing as to authorship. 

c. The number of synonymous collocations decreases steadHy 
from the Dialogus through the works of Tacitus. This lact is 
established, but are the Agricola and the Germania the means 
between the extremes of the Dialogus and the Annals, or are they 
the independent beginnings of a new style in which this element 
was much less common and decreased to the end 1 In answeriof 
this question we are met by two facts : So freely are these collo- 
cations allowed in the Dialogus that about a dozen are used which 
" apparently lack an exact or an analogous equivalent either in the 
writings of Tacitus or elsewhere." About the same number are 
paralleled only in the Agricola and the Germania. The following 
is the list given by Gudeman, Dial. Proleg. Iv. With the Dialo- 
gus forms are also given the forms used by Tacitus so as to show 
the differences in the minor details of the form of statement: 

Metus et terror, c. 5, 33 : Agr. 33, 8 metus ac terror; tueri et 
defendere, c 7, 8 : G. 14, 4 defenders, tueri ; nemora et luci, c 9, 
32; 13, I : G. 9,8 l.acn.; to, 12 n.acl.; 45, 32 nemora lucosque; 
fortuitus et subitus (Baehrens ac suditus), c. to, 31 = G. 11,4; 
atit gloria maior aut augustior honor, c. 13, 14 : G. 5, 5 suns 
honor aut gloria; ingenium ac studium, c, 14, 10: Agr. 3, 8 
ingenia studiaque; caeli siderumque, c. t6, 29 : Agr. n. 14 
caelum et sidera ; vi et potestate, c. 19, 33 : (H. 2, 39, 2 v. ac p.); 
G. 43, 8 vis et potentia; vim et ardorem, c 24, 3 : Agr. S, 3 vim 
ardoremque ; (H. i, 62 ardor et vis) ; severitate ac disciplina, c 
28, 11; d. ac s. 38, 25 : G. 25, 7 d. et s.; ac non studia modo 
curasque, sed remissiones etiam lususque, c 28, 20 : Agr. 9, S 
tempora curarum re mission u mq ue ; non probitati neque modestiae, 
c. 39, 7 ; p. et m. 40, 8 : G. 36, 4 modestia ac probitas; angustis 
et brevibus, c 30, 27 = G. 6, 3; consilio et auctoritate, c 36, 33: 
G. 1 3, 1 1 consilium simul et auctoritas ; quies et . . . otium et . . . 
tranquillitas et . . . disciplina, c. 38, 17 : Agr. 6, 14; 21, 3; 42,5 
quiete et otio; 40, 18 tranquillitatem atque otium. 

Most of these can be found in other authors whose style has 
little in common with the style of Tacitus. It should be noticed 

^d by Google 


that tbere is indisputable parallelism in but few of the passages. 
Angustis et brevibus, c 30, 27 = G. 6, 3, and the words are used 
in reverse order in Pliny Ep. 2, 7, 4 vita eius brevis et aiigusta. 
Quies et otium occur several times in Tacitus, but in the Dialogus 
they are only a part of the statement, c 38, 17 quies et . . . otium 
et . . . tranquillitas et . . . disciplina. Sen. N. Q. i, 2, S has the first 
three combined. Fortuitus et subitus, c. 10, 31, is probably 
correct, as et is used by Cicero in the same collocation which is 
found also G. 11, 4. The arrangement of the words in the collo- 
cations and the connectives are in most instances different in the 
works under consideration, which shows that Tacitus did not ded 
with the mere words in the same way as the author of the Dia- 
logus. Aa the collocations in the works are not really parallel, 
they do not prove that the Dialogus is on the line of development 
running through the works of Tacitus, and for that reason this 
feature of the style of the Dialogus is shown not to be the basis 
out of which was developed the similar feature in the style of 

2. Parallel References. — The Dialogus presents the same gen- 
eral features as the other works of the period in the arrangement 
of words and the use of rhetorical figures. In the use of words 
there are many striking coincidences in the Dialogus and the 
works of Tacitus, These have been presented by Gudeman 
(Dial. Proleg. xlvi-xlix) with such fulness that his collections 
form a secure basis for comparisons in this respect between the 
Dialogus and the works of Tacitus. The coincidences, however, 
do not prove identity of authorship, though they may be used to 
strengthen other lines of argument. Taken by themselves, they 
tend to show that Tacitus might have written the Dialogus. 
Similar coincidences tend to show that Pliny or Quintilian might 
have written it. But setting aside this £act, the value of the coin- 
cidences must be determined in accordance with a few general 

a. Some of the expressions are met with in authors whose style 
differs widely from that of the Dialogus and the works of Tacitus. 
This indicates that the words were within easy reach of any writer 
who wished to use them in the expression of ideas which were by 
no means abstruse or uncommon. Writers differing widely in 
style might readily select the same word in touching upon a 
similar point in very different lines of literary development. This 

.y Google 


is shown by theuseof the word/^'V«/iaJH0r by Justi[ius,Val.Hax., 
Tacitus and the writer of the Dialogus. *. The use of other 
words may be due entirely to the sources from which Tacitus and 
the writer of the Dialogus derived the main elements of thor 
style. In Tacitus we have a reflection of Sallust and of Vergil; 
in the Dialogus, of Cicero. Elements common to the two sources 
may move along in entirely different currents of literary expres- 
sion, and at the same period appear in works very unlike each 
other in style. Given an expression in Cicero and also in Sallust, 
Livy or Vergil, and students of each, entirely independent of 
each other, may reproduce the same expression. As illustiatioas 
of this may be given concessive ut, quod si, ante . . . post : ' supe- 
rior to . . . inferior ' (Sail., Livy, Sen. Phil.), c. Other word* 
seem to have been the common property of the writers of ihe 
time. This is due to a common literary inheritance, and tbe 
influence of the rhetorical schools and their teacheia. If it were 
proved, or if we accepted the supposition that Tacitus was for a 
time a pupil of Quintilian,the phenomena common to his writings 
and those of the pupils of Quintilian might be assigned to a 
common source, and all their value for this discussion would be 
lost. Ipse may be taken as an illustration of this and even of a 
still wider connection. According to Gudeman (1,4) it occurs 66 
times in the Dialogus, and in proportionately still lai^r ratio in 
tbe Histories. The Laelius of Cicero has the word relatively more 
frequently than has tbe Dialogus. A section as long as the Dia- 
logus, chosen at random from the works of Seneca, had nearly as 
many occurrences ; one from Pliny's Epistles had more. If « 
test all the parallel passages in the Dialogus and the works (rf 
Tacitus, many must be rejected as of no weight in showing iden- 
tity of authorship. Tbe residue must then be examined in con- 
nection with the residue obtained by treating the parallels in 
Pliny and Quintilian in the same way. A dozen unique parallels 
in Tacitus cannot be accepted as a certain indication of identity of 
authorship if it can be shown that there are ten in the works of 
Pliny. Until this careful examination is made of the works 
written about the same time as the Dialogus, it will be impossible 
to know just what weight is to be attached to tbe parallels adduced 
to indicate Tacitean authorship for the Dialogus. At the present 
time their value in the discussion of authorship is hardly commen- 
surate with the mass. 

.y Google 


3. Stylistic Divergences. — The various stylistic phases examined 
do not clearly point to Tacitus as the author of the Dialogus, and 
it will be necessary to present some other prominent characteris- 
tics of the latter. It is necessary to do this on account of the 
number of divergences from the form of statement in Tacitus. 
There are 10 it a score of Ar. tip., more than 150 words in the Tac 
Lex. (A — reliquus) and a goodly number of meanings not found 
in Tacitus ; a large number of words and meanings which can be 
paralleled by only a single occurrence in Tacitus ; a number of 
stylistic laws which hold good for Tacitus, but for the Dialc^us 
only by a change of text (see Gudeman ad c. 10, 35 ; 13, 19 ; 13, 
*4 ; 17. 25 ; 37. 18 ; 38, 2) ; a number of passages in which con- 
sistent Tacitean us^e requires a change of text (see Gudeman ad 
c 2, 15 ; 10, 20 ; 10, 36 ; 21, 33 ; 22, 3 ; 28, 14). Taking the text 
either with or without the changes made for the sake of confor- 
mity to the Tacitean norm, there are such a number of differ- 
ences between the works that they cannot be put aside as of no 
value in the discussion. 

4, Cumulative Sentences in the /JioAifiM.— Excluding the 
exclamatory and interrogative sentences in the Dialogus, the 
normal sentence is very long. There are numerous instances of 
the libration of clauses, and anaphora is common. In addition 10 
the anaphoric clauses there are a number of successive clauses 
usually parallel in construction, and without connectives, e. g. 5, 22 
praesidium amicis, opem alienis, saluiem periclitantibus, invidis 
vero et inimicis metum et terrorem feras; 9, 15 toto anno, per 
omnes dies, magna noctium parte; 22, 11 lentus . . . longus . . . 
otiosus; 25, 18 adstrictior Calvus, nervosior Asinius, splendidior 
Caesar, amarior Caelius, gravior Brutus, vehementior et plenior 
et valentior Cicero ; 31, 28 Academici . . . Plato . . . Xenophon ; 

33, 15 ignorent . . . non teneant . . . derideant . . . reformident; 

34, 8 magnua . . . multum . . . plurimum; 34, 27 discipulus . . . 
auditor . . . sectator ; 34, 29 nolae . . . non novi . . . frequens . . . 
saepe cognitae. 

Asyndeton with unmodified words is rarely allowed, e. g. 23, 10 
&stidiunt, oderunt, Calvi rairantur. On the other hand, polysyn- 
detic et more than three times repeated is comparatively frequent, 
e. g. 10, 17; 17, 4 sed Ciceronem et Caesarem et Caelium, et 
Calvum et Brutum et Asinium et Messallam; t8, 5: 19, 12; 25, 
^5 • 37> 1 ' > 39i 3<^- Gudeman ad 10, 17 ciles three passages from 

.y Google 


the works of Tacitus, and adds " Thereafter it disappears eatiiely, 
an asyndeton or variations with et, tic, gtu taking its place." Con- 
trary to Tacitean usage, out is repeated three or four times, e. g. 
7> 5 ; 9> 32 ; 15, 9 ; 35, 19 praemia aut electiones aut remedia aut 
incesta aut quidquid aliud. The same freedom is used with tioe, 
vel and neq%ie. Taken as a whole, judging by the examples 
collected by Weinkoff, pp. 81 seqq., the Dialogus sentences coa- 
trasted with the Tacitean sentences are cumulative. Neqite, for 
example, c. 38, 1 2, occurs five times in succession, followed by tm 
denique. In Tacitus it occurs no more than three timea in succes- 
sion, H. 4, 74,4. While the cumulative characterof the Dialogus 
sentence differentiates it from the normal Tacitean sentence, the 
most noticeable feature is the duplication of corresponding parts. 

5. Duplication of Paris. — The number of instances is compara- 
tively small in which three or more single terms are repeated. 
Two of the best illustrations of this are the following : 31, 17 sive 
apud infestos, s. ap. cupidos, s. ap, invidentes, s. ap. tristes, s.ap. 
timentes ; 18, 5 horridi et impoliti et rudes et informes et quos . . . 
Of these there are about 40. We have noticed about 1 30 instances 
in which there has been repetition of pairs of modified words, e. %. 
28, 6 desidia iuventutis et neglegentia parentum et inscientia 
praecipiemium et oblivionemorisantiqui; 21, 17 sordes verbonim 
et hians compositio et inconditi sensus ; 8, 30 causis forensibus et 
oratorio studio. Thelatter is a good exampleof the repetitionof 
modified parts, but the number of these is scarcely one-third as 
large as the number in which the words are not modified, thoi^h 
a parallel construction is not always preserved in the two parts of 
the pair, e.g. 10, 33 notabilem et cum auctoritate dicturam; 11,9 
improbam et studiorum quoque sacra profanantem ; 33, 8 iam 
senior et iuxta finem vitae ; 35, 15 leviores et minus pnidentiae 
exigentes. Most of the pairs consist of two similar words 
repeated without modification, e. g. 8, 20 agunt feruntque; 11, ti 
notitiae acnominis; 12,5 pura atque innocentia ; 8, 12 sordidiuset 
abiectius. These illustrate the usagewithdifTerentparts of speech 
and different connectives, though et is used in most cases. Some 
features of this general usage are worthy of special consideralioo. 

a. Synonymous Collocations. — These form but a small part of 
the entire number, yet the originality of the author is shown by 
the number which have no parallel in other writers. So strongly 

.y Google 


mariced is this feature of the style that we should expect abua- 
danl evidences of it in any later work by the same writer. The 
OQCS common to the smaller works have already been analyzed. 
However, but a comparatively few of them appear in Tacitus, and 
the combinations in Tacitus are often very different. The follow- 
ing, including some groups not synonymous, will illustrate this : 
1, 17 animi et ingenii (21, 41) : G. 29, 11 mente animoque; H. i, 
84, 4 quern animum, quas mentes ; Agr. 24, 9 ingenia cultusque 
homiaum ; 42, 14 proprium human! iogenii . . . Domitiani vero 
oatura ; Ann. 4, 33, 6 natura . . . ingenia ; Agr. 3, 8 ingenia studi- 
aque; 10, 2 curae ingeniive; H. 2, 10, 4 pecunia, potentia, inge- 
nio ; H. 4, 44, 15 ingenia et opes et . . . potentia. These are the 
combinations of the word ingenium in the works of Tacitus. In 
the Dialogus we have, 2, iz ingenio et vi naturae; 16, 3 erudi- 
tionem et 1.; 3t, 14 i. ac vires; 36, 29 i. et eloquentia; 37, 11 i. et 
oratione ; i, 2 i. gloriaque ; 24, 4 i. ac spiritu. 

2, 16 industriae et laboris: Agr. 42, 21 i. ac vigor; Ann. 4, i, 
19 i. ac vigilantia; H. 3, 90, 3 1, temperantiatnque ; Ann. i, 44,20; 
H. I, 45, 8 i. innocentiaeque ; Ann. 3, 54, 36 i. ac severitatem ; 16, 
23. 3 imtitia atque i.; H. 2, 95, 10 probitate aut i. Dial. 30, 9 
infinitus labor et cotidiana meditatio. Ann, 4, 61, 5 meditatio et 
labor. The latter is frequently found combined with other nouns, 
e. g. patientia, constantia, vigilantia, periculum and opus, but not 
with industria. 

2, 12 institutione et litteris. Ann. 16. 34, 4 Cynicae institu- 
tionis. Litterae, meaning literature, is found four times in the 
Dial., once in Tacitus, H. 4, 86, 11. 

8, 30 honoribus et ornamentis et facultatibus refertas domus. 
In Tac, omamentum is always modified by consularis or trium- 

II, 4 detrectaret poetas . . . atudium prosterneret. In Tac. 
detrectare does not have a personal object ; prostemere always 
takes one, except Ann. 3, 46, 15 motem (i. e. ferratos) p. 

II, II ; 36, sonotitiae ac nominis. notitia also c. 5, iS; 13, 6. 
G. 13, 16; H. 2, 37, 7 nomen, gloria. 

11, 15 aera et imagines: Agr. 46, 11 imaginibus quae marmore 
aut acre finguntur. Ann. 4, 43, 9 monimenta sculpta saxis et 
aere prisco. 

12, 19 fabulosa nimis et composita ; c. 31, 3 fictis nee ad verita- 
tem accedentibus. Agr. 40, ti ; H. 3, 78, 7 fict. et compos.; H. 
3, 50, 6 conquirere fabulosa et fictis oblectare. 

.y Google 


31, 37 fecerunt carmiDaet in bibliothecas retulenuL InTac 
caimen 13 used five tiroes with factito, which is not in the Dialogns. 

23> 37 ; 35, 30 malignitas et invidia : Agr. 41, 17 maligniutt et 
livore. H. i, i, 11 obtrectalio et livor . . . adulationi . . .malig- 
nitati. Malignitas is also found, c. 15, 6 ; 18, 16 uncombined, but 
in Tacitus it is used only in connection with livor. 

31, It naturaro humanam et vim virtuium. Natuia humana is 
not in Tacitus. Agr. 43, 14 h. ingenii. H. i, 23, 16, revetsed. 
H. I, 15, 32 h. animi. H. t, 55, 4; 2, 30, 7 insita mortaldms 

34, 38 eruditus et adsuefactus aJienis ezperimentis : J^. 19, 1 
doctus per aliena experiroenta. 

b. Amplification in tme 0/ the Paris. — Natns. i3, 10 usus recent 
et malis moribus natus ; 10, 24 immanes illos et ad pugnam nates 
lacertos; 6, 4 libero et ingenuo animo et ad voluptates honesOs 
nato; 7, 3 homo novus et in civitate miniroe favorabili natus; 16, 
18 veteres et olim natos. Tacitus has no parallel examples. 

Dignus. 16, I magnam et dignam tractatu; zo, 15 inlustreet 
dignum memoria, Pliny Ep. i, 17, 2 pulchnim et magna laude 
dignum ; i, 33, 10 arduum in primis et praecipua laude dignum. 

Et nullus. 13, 8 in ilia casta et nullis contacta vitiis pecton. 
38, 36 sincera et Integra et nullis pravitatibus detorta . . . natun. 
Similar instances are given from Tacitus by Gudeman, Dial. 
Proleg. Ivi. b., and are not uncommon in Seneca. 

Future Participle. 10, 34 notabilem et cum auctoritate dicto- 
■^^™ i 33> 9 iuvenes iam et forum ingressuri ; 37, 4 inertes et dod 
suffecturi honoribus. 

A few other participles which show a slight difference between 
the Dialogus and Tacitus will be given here, though they do not 
properly come under this head. 22, 15 firmus et duratiuiis; 34, 
34 magnam et duraturam. Duratunu is not used as an adjective 
by Tacitus. 9, 33 mansurum in animo cuiusquam beneGduD. 
This is the only instance in the Dial where the fut. part, is used 
in which the parts are not duplicated. In Tacitus mansuna is 
found several times, both singly and as one of a pair (see Tac. 
Lex.) This is however not a significant fact, for mansunts was so 
used by Vergil and Ovid, and several times by both the Senecas, 
and is found in Pliny, Quintilian and other writers of the period. 

Adjectives and Adverbs. 6, 16 inter tacentes et in unum coo- 
versos. 7, 13 negotiosos et rebus intentos. 11, 9 improbam rt 

.y Google 


studionim quoque sacra prolanantem. I3, 17 dis genitos sa- 
crosque. 16, 27 breve et in proximo. 18, 3 in medio sitam et 
propiorem. 33, 8 iam senior et iuxta finem vitae. 36, 30 incom- 
positus et studio fertendi plerumque deiecius. 29, 3 vilissimus 
nee cniquam serio ministerio accommodatus. .30, 39 ornate et 
apte ad persuadendum. 31, 3 fictis oec ... ad veritatem acce- 
dentibus. 41, 18 invidioeiset excedentibus modum defensionibus. 
3t, 31 parato . . . et ad omnem usum reposito. 31, 26 aptos et in 
oranem disputatioDem paratos. 41, 13 inter bono9 mores et in 
obsequium regentis paratos. Parallel Tacitean expressions seem 
confined to paratus. 

c. MUceUaiuous. — To this fondness for duplication may be 
ascribed the instances of hendyadis: i, 14; 10, 33; 20, 21; 31, 14; 
28, 13; 34, 1 ; 39, 7. It is also the cause of some expressions 
which are tautological : 36, i optiroo et perfeaissimo, 34, 19 
optimus et electissimus. The duplication has affected both parts 
of the statement 41, i6non imperiti et multi deliberent sed sapien- 
tissimus et uaus. It is this prevailing tendency on the part of the 
writer which accounts for fatalis et meus dies (13, 35), longum et 
unum annum (17, 13), and solus et unus (34, 32), which are com- 
bined in other authors, though solus H unus seems confined to 
the Dialogus, and represents the author's usual method of con- 
necting the parts in such expressions. Compare with the apolo- 
getic tone of Tacitus, Agr. 44, 19 continuo et velut uno ictu. 
Uno et eodem (22, 37) is a frequent combination, though it is not 
exactly paralleled by Germ. 34, i genus spectaculorum unum 
atque in omni coetu idem. 

d. Composilian of the Parts. — The Dialogus differs from the 
smaller works of Tacitus not only in number of occurrences of 
duplicated parts, but also in the make-up of the parts, and it is in 
this that the diATerences are moat noticeable. In the Dialogus 
there are nearly 400 instances in which there has been a duplica- 
tion of unmodified parts. Of this number there are about 160 
each, where nouns and adjectives are used. In the Agr. and 
Germ., nouns are used in two-thirds of the instances, while adjec- 
lives are only two-fifths as numerous. 

When there is a repetition of groups of modified words, e. g. c. 
I, 15 excogitata suhtiliter et dicta graviter; 3, 8 mira cupiditateet 
ardore iuvenili ; 5, 5 usu amicitiae et adsiduilate coniubernii ; 6, 

.y Google 


33 commeodat eventum et lenocinatur voluptati, the differeDces 
are equally noticeable. In the Dialogus the most numerous pain 
are those composed of nouns, 37 per cent, of all, while in the Agr. 
and Germ, they form but 21 per cent. Not only is there a dis- 
tincdy recoeoized difference in the make-up of the pairs, but they 
are differently used in the formation of sentences. The most 
noticeable instances in the smaller works of Tacitus are Agr.4, 17 
scilicet sublime et erectum ingenium pulchritudincm ac spedem 
magnae excelsaeque gloriae vehementius quam caute adpelebaL 
31, 5 corpora ipsa sc manus silvis ac paludtbus emuniendis inter 
verbera ac contumeltas conteruntur. Wherethere is repetitiooof 
pairs of words they generally stand in different case relations to 
the verb, as in the last example, e. g. Germ. 4, 8 ; 24, 7. There it 
00 indication of any attempt on the part of Tacitus to make this a 
noticeable feature in the style. In the Dialogus there is, as can 
be seen from the following : 5, 22 praesidium amicis,opem aliecis, 
salutem periclitantibus, invidis vero et inimicis metum et terrorem 
ultro feras, ipse securus et velut quadam perpetua potentia ac 
potestate munitus. 7, 16 ; 10, 13 ; 20, 8 vulgus quoque adsisten- 
tium et adfluens et vagus auditor adsuevit iam exigere laelitiam 
et puichiitudinem oraiioois. 20, 15 ; 21, 35 temperatus ac bonus 
sanguis implet membra et exsurgit toris ipsosque nervos rubor 
tegit et decor commendat. 25, 22 quandam iudicii ac voluntatis 
similitudincm et cognationem. 

The difference between the Dialogus and the works of Tacitus 
in this respect can be briefly stated. In the Dialogus it is a fim- 
damental element in the style, and in the works of Tacitus it is 
not. Neither in the examples of synonymous collocations com. 
mon to the Dialogus and the smaller works of Tacitus, nor in the 
examples of duplicated parts not synonyms, do we find Tadtos 
continuing the lines of expression developed in the Dialogus. As 
the words in the duplicated parts in the Dialogus are but rarely 
used in the same way by Tacitus ; as there is a noticeaUe difier- 
ence between the works in reference to the parts of speech used 
in the pairs, as well as in the use of the pairs in sentences, there 
is sufficient ground for claimii^ that in the treatment of dupli- 
cated parts the Agricola is the beginning of a new form of expres- 
sion distinct from that in the Dialogus. 

6. Different Attitude toward the Same Words. — There is con- 
siderable difference between the Dialogus and the w<»ks of 

.y Google 


Tacitus in reference to the amount of metaphorical material used. 
Some of the words occurring in each are used metaphorically in 
the Dialogus, but in their ordinary physical meaning in Tacitus. 
This may be partially caused by the requirements of the subject 
presented in the Dialogus, but at the same time it must be 
admitted that it is one of the differences between the Dialogus and 
the other works. The Germania has less of this material than 
has the Agricola, which in this respect is about the same as the 
Annals and Histories. 

A few other instances will be noticed in which the writers seem 
to sUnd in different attitudes toward the same word. Of those 
only in the Dialogus and Annals, D. has inUrdieium as a substan- 
tive; A., only the verb forms q( interdico; A. uses excessus-= 
mors ; obUctamenium only in the plural ; intenfio not of persons ; 
occupationes without rerum. Both works have the apologetic 
ve/ui /rent, D. 38, 8 ; Ann. 5, 3, 4, If Tacitus wrote the Dialogus 
about 81 A D., it is not exactly clear why, in the Annals, he 
should have apologized for the use of a figure which he used so 
many years before. Both D. and H. have /ax in a transferred 
sense. Its first occurrence in Tacitus is H. i, 34 flagrantibus 
iam ntilitum animis velut faces addiderat Maevius. Vehit is 
omitted when it occurs again, H. 2, 86, 20 bello facem praetulit. 

Of the words found in only D., H.and A., D. has seaisiinereafi; 
aihu of persons ; aiumnus feminine ; con/essum : deinceps without 
correlative ; velut in aciem educere ; /acvUas = opes ; pericuhttn 
mcrepuU ; in/ructuosus with latis (in H. and A. with militia only) ; 
impeditus w\\ii oraiio; inkonestum /actu; mutus etelinguis; (in 
H. and A., m. with inanimus) ; nedum ut; perge (in oraliane') ; 
pondus of immaterial things ; principium = exordium. The list of 
dilTerences might be much extended and swollen to large propor- 
tions by the addition of those expressions which are found in the 
Dialogus and but once or twice in the other works. Considering 
the mass of the different works, the appearance but once or twice 
in the works of Tacitus of a Dialogus expression comparatively 
common must be interpreted as indicating a different attitude of 
the writers toward the expression. The avoidance by Tacitus of 
the use, e. g. of cum . . . turn, natus ad, dum modo, quod . . . 
aUinet, and nescio an is shown by the fact that they are sporadic 
in his writings. The chief differences can be seen in the use of a 
few words which Tacitus uses instead of the ones found in the 
Dtal<^^. Thefacttbathedoes not have au^iffAuasanadjective, 

.y Google 


exkertor (Tac horior), hisioria, insanus, ittvidus, mcraHs,per- 
ciph, poeta, cum praesertim, is noticeable, but it is in the cases 
where there has been a distinct substitution that the proof is 
decisive against the theory of Tacitean authorship. 

The Dialogus hasy£^^,and Tac. Ann. 15,67 has itinaquou- 
tion. Both are in the comparative, though Tacitus hasm^firy£^ 
twice, and (he other forms 47 times, htfidelis is not used br 
either, infidus only by Tacitus. 

The Dialogus has inexercilatm, Tacitus inexpertus. Of the 
affirmative forms, T. has experius eight times, exerciiaiui in but 
one doubtful passage. 

The Dialogus has quae cum dixissei 1 1, t ; 24, i. UBi sup- 
[dants cum in Tacitus, in similar phrases. 

Fere is used four or five times in the Dialogus. Tadtus has 
it but once in a doubtful passage, vhile/erme occurs 28 times. 

Propter is the Dialogus word, while Tadlus has ob, eicepi in 
one passage, H. i, 65, 3 propter Neronem Galbamque pugnaretur. 
Here the meaning ' proxime accedit ad de,' and cannot be paral- 
leled by any passage in Tacitus with ob, which is used with proper 
names only when the name is modified by a partidple, the tvo 
representing an abstract noun and a genitive. A. t, 44, 15 ob 
imminentis Suebos ; i, 50, 2 ob amissum Augustum ; 3, 60, 3 ob 
seputtum illic rectorem navis Canopum; 3, 11, a ob receptum 
Maroboduum ; 12, 9, 8 ob accusatam Messalioam. 

Ni is used 72 times in Tadtus, not at all in the Dialogus and 
Germania, though the latter, excepting 11, 3 'coeunt, nisi quid 
fortuitum et subitum incidit, certis diebus,' uses nia only with 
adverbial force, which is not the case in the Agricola. 

A stronger example is haud, which Tadtus uses 234 01 235 
times. The number per page Teubner text is slightly lower in 
the Agricola and Germania than in the Histories, and in them 
lower than in the Annals. This might seem a development, but 
the Histories average the same as the second part of the Annals, 
Book XIII having the least number per page of any section 
in the works of Tacitus, the largest number being in Book II. 
So unevenly distributed is the word through the different books 
that the omission of a single book from the different sections of 
the larger works will make the proportion nearly the same for all. 
The Dialogus has ' non facile dixerim,' 35, 6, while ' haud ' is the 
prevailing negative in such expressions in Tadtus. It has 'plane' 
(s6, 34) for ' haud dubie,' which Tacitus has nine times ; it coosist- 

.y Google 


«ntly avoids using kavd with miaus, multum and satis. There 
are no signs of development in the use of the vord ; there is no 
connecting linlc between the Dial, and the works of Tacitus. 
In this respect they are simpiy antagonistic in form of expression, 
and no cause has been presented which might have brought about 
a change from the fixed type of the Dial, form of expression to 
the distinct and equally fixed type in the works of Tacitus. 

Non modo . . . sed efiam and Eqttioalenis. — A careful analysis 
of over five thousand examples of this formula in the principal 
Latin writers shows great diflerences between individual writers, 
but great uniformity in each writer, even where (he authorship 
has extended over many years, as in the case of Cicero and 
Livy. In its use of the formula the Dial, differs widely from the 
works of Tac, and in explaining the differences, genetic develop- 
ment plays no part, for the variations in the Dial, are as distinct 
from those in Cic. and Quintilian as they are from those in Taci- 
tus. The Dial, does not imitate Cicero in this respect. It has 
nan /anium 14, 16 ; 23, 18 and perhaps 33, 10 where the reading 
is uncertain. In the second member it has sed . . . guogue 2, 7 ; 
io< 15 ; 37> 10. Both of these are very rarely found in Cicero. In 
Tac, mode is in most instances not separated from the negative ; 
in the Dial, in all cases excepting perhaps 2, 6. In the first 
member Tac. prefers non modo; the Dial, non solum. In the 
second member Tac. has sed in a majority of instances ; the Dial., 
sed etiam. Of the twenty-four different combinations of the words 
of the formula, six are found only in the Dial., while three others, 
occurring eight times in all, are found in the Dial, and the works 
ofTacitus. In other words, two-thirds of the Dial, combinations 
do not occur in Tac. at all, and the other third only sporadically. 
The Agr. has one combination, and the Germ, two, which do not 
appear in the Ann. and Hist., whose most common combinations 
do not appear in the Dialogus at all. 

A fair interpretation of all the statements in the Dialogus as to 
the date of publication indicates a later date than is possible if it 
were written by Tacitus. At the same time there are no reasons 
for believing that Crispus, who is attacked in the Dialogus, lost 
his power during the reign ofTitus. Even if he had, the relation 
of Tacitus to the entire imperial family precluded the author- 
ship of such a work by him. He was the recipient of imperial 
bvors, and if be bad published under Titus a work attacking the 
^vorite of the next emperor, it is not at all probable that he would 

.y Google 


have been advanced by that emperor, or have passed uD{mushed 
during the life of the &vorite. The hypothesis of psychological 
change In Tadtua has been ahown not to be a valid reason for 
verbal changes, nor does the theory of genetic developcnenl m 
some features of style show anything more than a possibility of 
authorship by Tacitus, while in the case of duplicated parts it does 
not hold at all. The stylistic correspondences between the difer- 
ent works are many, but not altogether peculiar to them nor 
necessarily indicative of sameness of authorship. Opposed to 
these are differences for which no theory accounts, and which are 
decisive against the claims made for Tacitus. 

There are some distinct gains in establishing an independent, 
non-Tacitean authorship for the Dialogus. Its graminaticai 
features require no remodelling at points where they do not agree 
with the Tacitean norm. It will have the value of an independeot 
work revealing new forms of expression, ranking co-equal with 
the works of Tacitus, and not as now a subject to Tacitean laws irf 
style. It will relieve commentators from the necessity of crowd- 
ing assumptions into the literary development of Tacitus, and will 
leave them free to accept a more direct interpretation of the wodc 
especially in reference to chronological data. 

Who the writer was cannot be determined, unless there maybe 
found in some work of a later writer a direct quotation assigned 
to its author. Against Pliny and Quintilian, as well as Tacitus, 
the negative argument is conclusive. However, from the wwk 
we can establish a few elements in bis intellectual and moral 
make-up. That he was a rhetorician is shown by the prevailing 
Bchoolish tone of the work. Taking Cicero as a model, he pre- 
sented his work under the mantle of others, but without a usee 
that he did not consider himself a master of the art of expression. 
His self-confidence in this respect is in marked contrast with the 
apolc^etic tone of Tacitus in his firstwork, 'non tamen pigebitvel 
incondita ac rudi voce memoriam prions servitutis ac testimonium 
praesentium bonorum composuisse.' As illustrations of contem- 
poraneous oratory he puts forward two imperial favorites, Vibius 
Crispus and Marcellus ; the powerful friend of Domitian, Regulus, 
'omnium bipedum nequissimus' (Pliny Ep. 1,5, 14), and Messalla, 
who had won renown by the defence of his infamous brother. As 
the writer posited the dialogue, the speakers, and the circum- 
stances under which the dialogue was held, the selection of such 
men as representatives shows his own political attitude, for he 

.y Google 


might have presented the sut^ect differently had he chosen to 
publish the work as the result of his own reflections. His bias is 
also shown by his attitude toward Helvidiua Priscus. 05,31, he 
says of Marcellus, 'inexercitatam et eius modi certaminum rudem 
Helvidii sapientiam elusit' If this refers to the last attempt of 
Helvidius to crush Marcellus, the cbaractoization of the oratory 
of Helvidius is not correct, for Tacitus says of their speeches in 
the first contest, H. 4, 6, 6 ' prime minax certamen et egregiis 
utriusque orationibus testatum,' placing the men as equals in 
oratorical power, nor does he consider the result as a triumph on 
the part of Marcellus, ' mox dubia voluntate Galbae, roullis sena- 
torum deprecantibus, omisit Priscus.' The failure of the last 
attempt as stated by Tacitus was due to the intervention of Domi- 
tian and Mucianus, and was considered as a victory over the 
senate endeavoring to regain its liberty, while in the Dialogus it 
is considered as a personal contest between the two men. Agr. 
2; Ann. 4, 34-35, when compared with the Dialogus, also show 
an entirely different attitude on the part of the writers to the 
powers restricting the freedom of speech. The Dialogus has no 
word of condemnation for those who endangered the safety of 
Matemus, while Tacitus, especially at the close of c. 35, reflects 
on the attitude of rulers to free speech. It may be said that the 
feeling of hostility was developed in Tacitus, but it would be 
expected that a man at least twenty-five years of age would have 
at least some trace of independent thought in reference to so 
important a question. 

His political attitude is further shown by the omissions in the 
Dialogus. The represented occasion of the dialogue was the 
endangered safety of Matemus caused by his freedom of speech 
with reference to those in power. But the writer did not seize the 
occasion created by his own setting of the dialogue and show the 
sum-total of the effects on oratorical and literary expression of 
imi>erial despotism since the days o£ Augustus. In his discussion 
he mentions the ' principis disciplina ' as the most important of four 
causes which had tamed down an eloquence developed under con- 
ditions of true liberty, but which the Dialogus (40, 9) terms 
'eloquentia alumna licentiae, quam stulU libertaiem vocant.' There 
are abundant evidences in the work of a well-developed rhetori- 
cal training, and it is probable that he was a pupil of Quintilian, 
who wrote bis work before the publication of the Dialogus, and 
for that reason has no indications of either the acceptance or the 

.y Google 


Fcjectioaaf the ttadiii^iii thewoffct^bispapiL He expressed 
the aendment to be fbond in many places in Latin, that the good 
(dd days were betOr dun tbe pcesent. His literary critidsnis and 
s osraDy confonn to tbe judgment of tbe age as 
by Tadtoa and QuintiUan. His altitude on moral 
qoestioos has been compared to that of Tacitus. There is i 
resemblance, for bis reflecdoas are sach as we should expect 
from a man who wrote in an age which had received from Scnea 
the moral precepts idiichaie also reflected in the works of Tacitus. 
See Zimmennaon, De Tacilo Senecae Pbilosophi Imitalon 
Breslan, 1889. Taking into consideration the (axA that he didnot 
comt boldly (orward as an aatbor and present his work as his 
own, and interpreting this as the result of the political influences 
around him, the time best suited for authorship is during the latter 
part of tbe reign of Domitian, and toward this period convei^eall 
the lines of evidence as to the date of publication. 

From tbe mass of the writings of Cicero the work of Cornificius 
has been separated, and the claim for its real author has been 
vindicated, but for the [oesent we must rest content to restoreihe 
Dialogus to the Anctor ad Fabtum lustum. 

R. B. Steele. 

.y Google 


The discovery and publication in recent years of a Urge body 
of new material bearing on the choregia, and the fruitful labors of 
Lipsius, Reisch, Kohler, Bergk, Brinck and others upon this 
material, have made it possible at the present time to present in 
its general outlines, with essential accuracy, the history of the 
most important branch of the subject — the dramatic choregia at 
Athens during the fifth and fourth centuries. But to any one 
who musters the sources it soon becomes apparent that there are 
several serious lacunae in our knowledge, and several points at 
which the details in the history still elude our grasp. It is the 
purpose of this paper to supply, if possible, some of these details, 
by a re-examination of the inscriptiooal evidence and by com- 
bining with it some evidence, hitherto overlooked, derived from 
the contemporary literature. 

Our knowledge of the institution of the dramatic synchor^^ia 
depends, in the first instance, on a statement of Aristode quoted 
by the scholiast to Aristoph. Ran. 404, to the effect that under 
the archonship of Callias a decree was passed providing that two 
cbor^, instead of one, should be appointed for each tragic and 
comic poet for the Dton^ia. The correctness of this statement 
is attested by a number of inscriptions. 

Was the Callias under whom this change was made i it^i 
KXfrf^ror (412/11) Or d /itr' 'Amyt'n) (406/5) ? The earlier view 
of Bockh' — now held by Brinck,* Oehmichen,* and Gilbert' — 
fiivors the earlier date. The more natural opinion, however, held 
by A. Muller, Reisch and others, follows the statement of the 

' StuiUlunsbkltnne*, t, p. 538, corrected in the footnote from BOckh'* own 

* Intcriptionet graecae ad choregiam pertineniei, p. 93 ff. 

*Ochinichen, Bahnenwesen, p. iq6. He doabts.howevet, the correctaeM of 
the Dotice of the icholiait, " trotzdeo ue tich mit der Autoritfil del Ariitotelei 
brflatet" L;*. ai, I, which he quotei id support, tintply callt for a date later 
than 41 1. 

'Conttitational Antiquiliei, p. 360, a. i. To the above namei may be 
added Bodentleiner, Ueber chor^iiche Weihinichriften. p. 7B, and Bethe, 
De Bcaenicamm ccrtanuiam victoribut, p. 7. 

.y Google 


scholiast, who identifies the Callias in question with the CalUit 
under whom the Frogs was produced. It may be cUimed, bow- 
ever, that the identification rests on the authority of the scholiast 
alone; that Aristotle, followii% bis usual custom,* gave the name 
of the arcbon with no distinguishing epithet. If this be granted, 
a plausible argument could be made for the earlier date from the 
financial condition of Athens just before the collapse of the 
Sicilian expedition. The answer to these objections is to be 
found in the passage in the Frogs upon which the scholiasft 
comment is made. Since the historical allusion has regularly 
been missed by modem commentators, I shall present the case at 
some length. 

404* <rv ykp Kar*OT(i<nt iii* (Vi ytXvn 

«1 Th patcot, Ki^tipii for 
djiffuW waiitir n koI }(optita: 

Scbol. ad loc>: <ri yip Kimirj(untJ iinw rf ita <Ft Kortir^i^urtff. • • • hut 
ii waptp^ainai tm Xirm ijfti? i)(opirf*in rmt irotirrau. (Arl yvvt ni 
KaXXimi ravtoo if)^)r A^wrrorAiif in tritivo JAofe j^optfytu' t& Aiovvffia 
nit rpaytftvit sal Kmiuftoii ' Aim Tirdtr ^f ru lai wtpi rir AifMu^ i ymt 
(riiVToXq, XP^'V ^ viiTtpoji 0(1 iroXX^ nw cat icaSawa( «-(fM>!X« SinprW rii 
X9PVY>^ «"'.)' 

The scholiast did not understand the purpose of the change, 
for it was the intention of the legislator to give the poets undi- 
minished support, while reducing by one-half the expense of 
each cboregus. The scholiast was misled by a literal interpre- 
tation of KOTiffj^iffB, saw in the passage only another allusion to 
the stinginess of the choregi, and was withal too eager to find a 
premonition of the total abolition of the cboregia, which, be 
believed, was soon to be accomplished. That it was not abol- 
ished by Cinesias is sufficiently shown by Aristotle, 'a0. toX. 56, 3. 
The whole interpretation of the scholiast must therefore be 
rejected, and we must go back to the text for the true meaning, 
using as the key the excerpt from Aristotle which some intelligent 

1 Wilamowiti, Aristolelc) und Achen, p. 8. 

■ It will be observed thai the quotation from AriUotle it not in the Coda 
Ravennai. It ii apparent, however, that, as tbej stand, both scbolia agree in 
the interpretation, thongh the reference to Aristotle it no longer in point. 
Probably the tource of the second scholinni had the correct nndentandinf of 
the pattage, sintplf quoting Aristotle in expUoatioD. 

.y Google 


commentator of sn early date wrote on the margin of the manu- 
script. It seems to me that we have in the text not simply a 
general allusion to the ababt>y costume with which the choreutae 
must needs be content, although that is there, hut a direct refer- 
ence to the joint choregia of two men which had been introduced 
that year, and for which the chorus expresses its gratitude to 
laccbus, i ^iXoxopivT^t, who has come to the rescue of his wor- 
shippers at this time of need and has preserved their rites 
unharmed. As the poet would put it, the choregia " has been 
split." In his usual manner he mingles fact and fancy, the literal 
and the metaphorical, to the confusion of commentators ancient 
and modem.' The historical allusion comes first. lacchus is the 
friend of the dancer, "for thou it is who didst have my litde 
sandal and my tattered garment split in twain for fun and for 
economy, and didst hit upon a way whereby I might play and 
dance unharmed." Then another member of the chonis takes 
up the literal meaning of the words and the (Vl yAvn to point the 
characteristic jest : np S^ imrutoi', aul fioX' Aitpnaiutm, wiata*»T^m, 

x*n*»'ov ttapappar/irrof, nrBim trpoKvfrttr. To my mind the Conclusion 
is irresistible that the synchoregia, so explicitly referred to in this 
passage, if the proposed interpretation is correct, was an event of 
recent date.' 

The question has been raised as to whether the scholiast rightly 
understands rA AwnMna in the statement of Aristotle to mean the 
City Dionysia alone. Brinck' leaves the question in doubt, 
though he inclines to the belief that both festivals are included 
in the expression. Bergk* believed that the law passed under 

■ Nor ii the advantoge in faroi of the modem. See, for example, Kock'i 
commeiilt aa the puiage. The textual changci which he and Btayde* 
pn>po*e, and of which other* have appTored, •re, it need hardly be uid. 

* The aJltuion to the x'Vrf'"^ in the Tngt it indicated not only by the 
epithet fiAejrqpcvr^ and by tartaxiou, but also ty xpP'^'i'. which here meant 
' to MTTc aa xpf"^' See Wilamowiti, Heiaklei*. II, p. 149. 

BodentteineT, op. cit., p. 78, concedei the claim of Oehntichen that Lys. 31, 
t, KOToiTTat Si x^'PVy^ 'Piin'^o't av^Xoaa rpuiwRTa fivof (in the year 411/10), it 
■gainit the trnchorecia, not. however, on the E">und that the ipeaker namet 
no feUow-choTegna, but became the luro expended it too large. He tOK'^'* 
that the text it cormpt. Bol I believe that the phraieologj in all such caiea 
exclndea the tnppoiition of a joint choregia, and that thii patsage could be 
need, if neceuaiy, as a further argament afiBinit the date 4i3/ii> 

* Op. cit.. p. 94 : " si Athenis lex ferebatur ainiim x'vn"''' ^"^ iurvbam, bene 
•tAtai poteit, tigniScata esse et AiovCoui ra iirfiXa et iiovivia T& M A^voiy." 

*Gc«ch. d. gr. Litt. Ill, p. 70, n. 375. 

^d by Google 


Callias was £v the Ctr DiooTsa, bat si^sestcd that a simiUr lav 
bad pccriooslT becB paoacd far the Lenaean festival. At first 
^anoe it oajr seem thai the > rrar^ were iodDded in the law <i 
CaiGas, because the Frogs was prodoced at the Lenaea. On the 
other hand, n a—n'w and immi»m an the des^nations r^utarljr 
grren to the axj festival in the fifth and fotirth centuries. Tbe 
addtCoo of n n ^m or n ■'■mJ is (band only a few times in tlie 
fifth centoiy, while n ^iJU docs act occm until the latter part <i 
the fborth century. In many instances it can be shown that jk 
•\\n\rtm and fliii I'na refer to the Oty DicHiyua exclusively, uid I 
have &iled to find an instance where a reference to the Lcoaea is 
implied with certainty. The ns^e of Aristotle in this matter it 
weQ illustrated in cfaapu 56 and 57 of the n^Unfa, where Aiaruvia 

B as distinctly opposed to &\miwt» ri rri Afraw aS AwrMM ik 

pryaXm. Bot the most ctrnvincing proof that Aristotle bad in 
mind tbe city fesdval Hone is Aimished by Lys. 21, 4, where we 
are told that the speaker won a victory as cbor^us for the comic 
poet Cephisodoras in the archonsbip of Euclid. At this date a 
single person could have been appointed choregus only for the 

It remains to determine the date of the discontinuance of the 
synchoregia. It will be convenient to discuss the tragic and the 
comic cboregia separately, although the assumption seems to 
prevail that, as tbe two were treated alike in the law of Callias, 
so the expedient of the joint cboregia must have been abandoned 
at the same time for both. Brinck' suggests that single choregi 
were again appointed when tragedies began to be presented 
singly. But, as A. Muller* points out, the inscription which he 
cites in support (CIA. II 973 — date, 342-340) does not prove 
that the poets contested with single tragedies. In fact, CIA. IV 
2, fr. g, p. 218 (348/7), proves the contrary — that one choregus 
provided for all the plays presented by each poet. This is about 
the time when Meidias served alone as choregus for tragedy 
(Dem. Meid. 156). Fragment c of CIA. II 971, which has been 
extracted by Kohler from the almost hopeless jumble of Piltakis' 
copy, and which is even now not very certain, bears the name of 
the archon Theodotus (387/6) and of the choregus and poet of 
the preceding year. Since tragedy is always the last event 
mentioned in these yearly records, it follows that in the year 
388/7 a single choregus was appointed in tragedy. 

>Op. cit.. p. gj. * PbiloloKut, Supp. VT, p. 9S' 

.y Google 


The following inscription was first published by Philios in Atb. 
Mitth. 19(1894), p. 174 f., and is now to be found in the Attic 
Corpus, IV 2, p. 254. It was found at Eleusis. The restorations 
are certain and will not be indicated. 

Apitmxffafrfv tdiiairiift't 
iripa riiq rpayifSoK, 

Foucart' has shown that it is extremely probable that the 
second victory was won by the younger Sophocles with his 
grandfather's play, the Oedipus Coloneus. in the year 401. As 
regards the victory in comedy, he argues as follows : " Les deux 
deniidres lignes sont de la ni6me main que les premieres ; ce 
n'est done pas une addition laite postftrieurement pour une 
victoire gagn€e plus tard ; I'inscription a 6t4 gravfe en une seule 
fois. Par consequent, la vicloire tragique a 4t4 ant^rieure i la 
victoire coroique." And so, he proceeds to say, the comic victory 
was won between 399 and 389. I confess that I am unable to 
understand the l<%ic of this argument. If the two records were 
inscribed a( the same time, the only indication of the order in 
which the victories were won is the order in which they are 
recorded. The irVp? yUn was unquestionably the second, and 
consequently the comic victory must have been won before 401 
and after 405. Incidentally it may be said that in the comedy 
was possibly the Ttipirnhft, a play similar to the Frogs in concep- 
tion, and produced about the same time. 

In another synchoregic inscription, CIA. Ill 1280, three 
victories are grouped together in which the poets were Dicae- 
ogenes, Ariphron and Polychares respectively. Kohler dates the 
inscription "ad inida saeculi quarti." Brinck (p. 106) thinks that 
the alphabet employed (o for ov, but ■ and i)) points to a dale not 
long after 411. Each is evidently influenced by the date which 
he accepts of the synchoregic law. Dicaeogenes' was a tragic 
poet, contemporary with Agathon, who flourished, as Kayser 
shows,* between 434 and 393. Ariphron was not before known 

■ Rene de Pfailoli^ie, 19 (1S95). p- 119 B. KOhler (ben U wrong io dating 
the inKriplion before Eaclid. 
■Welcker, Die griechiichen TrtgOdien, p. 104s- 
'Kayter, Hiit. crjt. trig. Gnec, p. 351. 

.y Google 


as a tragic poet, but be is probably Ariphron of Siqron, the 
ditbyrambic poet mentioDcd by Atbenaeus 15, 702 a. About 
Polychares notbing is known. Witb this meagre informatioD, 
and keeping as near 403 as possible, and assuming no long 
interval between tbe various victories that are recorded on tbe 
same stone, we may fix the date of the three victories approzi* 
mately in tbe yeara 404, 403, 402, 400, 399. The year 401 and 
possibly 398 and 397 are already occupied by tragic victories.' 

Turning now to the contemporary literature, we are able to 
arrive at more definite results. In a number of orations of tbe 
early part of the fourth century the services of a number of 
citizens in the choregia are mentioned, always in such a manner 
that one must infer that (bey served singly. In Isaeus 5, 36 tbe 
speaker relates that Dicaeogenes was so stingy that he got last 
place when choregus for tragedy. The immediate context shows 
that this was between 399 and tbe time of speaking, 389. We 
learn from Lys. 19, 29 and 42 that Aristophanes was choregus for 
tragedy twice in five years — once for his father and once in his 
own name — and that he was trierarch three times in successioo 
between the battle of Cnidus and his death in 389. Since the 
family had no property before this battle, so heavy a liturgy 
would hardly have been imposed on them in the year of tbe 
battle. The trierarcbies must have been after 390, when tbe 
Athenians first fitted out a fleet aAer the war with Sparta. This 
leaves only 393/2 and 392/1 for tbe two chorei^es.' Therefore 
between 399, the latest date of a tragic synchoregia of which 
there is evidence, and 393, the tragic synchoregia was abolished 
Taking into account the financial condition of Athens at this time, 
we may consider ca, 394 the probable date of the resumption of 
the single choregia for tragedy.* 

Navarre* appeals to CIA. II 971, fr. d, for proof that the comic 
synchoregia was given up in the course of the first half of the 
fourth century. Unfortunately this inscription, which tells of tbe 

'401, 0«d. Col.; 398, first appeannc« (victoi; 7) of Aitydunu, cf. Uar. Fv. 
Bi ; 397. appeAtance (and victoij?) of the jonnger Sophocles; tbe Iph. AnL, 
AlcmeoQ and Bacchae were brought out toon after the death of Enripdet. 
One of the above dates must therefore be reserved for these. 

' This result is taken from Blass, Att. Bered.', p. 531, note. 

'We have no knowledge that, while the synchoregU vas in operation, a 
single person might, under exceptional circumstances, be called upon to eqnip 
a choms, as in the case of the sjrntrierarchia, 

'Dionysos. p. \f). 

.y Google 


cboregia of Diopeilbes in a comic contest in which the poet 
Prodeides waa victor, bears no date. Kohler now assigns it to a 
period "several decades after the beginning of the fourth cen- 
tury."' It must, however, be assigned to a considerably later 
date.' The victory was won at the City Dtonysia, for choruses of 
men and boys are mentioned in the record. Now, in the great 
inscription which gives the number of victories won by the 
various poets in the dramatic contests (CIA. II 977, fr. g), the 
comic poet Prodeides is accredited with one victory. This list 
also refers to the City Dionysia. The identification seems certain. 
The name of Prodeides comes immediately after Timocles and 
before Menander. Menander won his first victory in 321.* Tim- 
odes won his single victory not a long time before, for it is not 
likely that, in a long interval, only one new poet should have 
been successfiil. Timodes was a contemporary of Demosthenes 
and Hypereides, but he exhibited as late as the second decade 
before 300.* The earliest comedy of bis that can be dated was 
produced about 345.' From these indications we should be 
reasonably safe in dating the victory of Timodes and that of 
Prodeides within about a decade before 331. Fragment d, there- 
fore, of this list of victors at the City Dionysia, originally had a 
place near fragments h and e, which belong together, the first 
column of fr. h being continued by the second column of fr. e. 
It will readily be seen by reference to the facsimiles that unless 
we can date the victory of Prodeides before 335, which we have 
shown to be improbable, fr. d can find a place only between fi*. h, 
coL I and fr. e, col. 3, and hence is the record for the year 332/ 1. 
Another fragment of the same inscription (fr. h, CIA. IV, p. 319) 
gives a single choregus for comedy in the record for 330/39. 

The metrical inscription CIA. Ill 1285 has been the subject of 
considerable discussion. As restored by Kohler, the first line 

^di^'ikwri ^opV Atm^M ff[v]fi[tr]or( <*£b»]. 

' He at 6nt MtigQed it to the begiDDiog of the foarth cenlnry. Atfa. Hitth. 
3<iB78).p. 109. 

' Oehniclieii c«onot have examined thU inicripiion veiy CRTefully, for he 
cilei it u proof that the ijnchoregia, if it ever eziited, WM"iiicht vod langem 
Bettande": op. cit., p. 196. 

■ AnoD. de comoedia. III Bl (DDbner). 

*Berck, Geich. gr. Litt. Ill, p. 163. 

'Meineke, I, pp. 387 and 439. 

.y Google 


It is a cg ot Jls gV a STi>ci)on{pc jaci ip bcw. as is now admitted \fj 
aX Kocltf thi=ks thai tbe c titJta c e is to a victory von at 
Atbeas. to c:e=Kcon!e vkjdi the dxw^ set np a stone in 
\xs owB deae — ix die iD scr ip eon was foond ootside of Athens. 
Reasdi- erideci.'-T ifaarcs tbis viev. far be ooosiders this inscrip- 
tko a R*inaii(» o( ibe statenteci fd ScfcoL Ran. 404, tbat Cinemas 
abc^if&ed ibe cbsregia. B r ■ nek .* bowerer. yidds to the antboritr 
ot tbe scboCias oa t*'* pp is t. and is compiled to explain ihia 
inscrrpoca ^snd CIA. II 137S) as cocnmemacatii^ a Tictory at 
tbe Rsral Diocv^ia 31 tiae deme to Thicfa the dtoregi bdonged. 
Nov ibe stco- a tbe aboC:tio«i of tike cboceg ia by Cinemas b a 
&cxa bcili s?oc ^^ ep^ibet 1. j ' 1 applied to him by the 
coc:x; poa Scarss.' and is abcsdamiy R&ted by nnimpeachable 
erJd^Ke. Briack's Tie*, bowerer. may be correct so &r as CIA. 
II :27s B cc oc ef a ed — an iascnpdoa foood ootside of Athens, 
lecerr^^ to a cocic cbote^a of a sx^;^ pefson. But as regards 
this setncal inscipcoc ibe &ct that it imrrives the synch(»egia, 
aa artasgcses: »b5ch «c ksov to hare exsted in Athens, and 
vb::± did noc so &r as w ksov, obtain anywhere dse, certainly 
pes np:^: BriiKrk tbe bcrden of proof, and gives us the right to 
nxt i^iis doccae=i 10 a Txrory woo at Atbeos. An ezamffc 
peecsieh- aoaJc^oos to this is fin-nkh^ 1^ the sy u ch or^ic 
iasc:ip6«> si>=; EJec^ csrassed ^xrv*. This metrical inscrip- 
tko is dued by Kohla-. on ei^iafducal grounds, after the 
mjcdje of tie iocnb ce n nar. The ctMnk syndKn^^pa, therefore, 
ooctisaed cnri^ a^er 350 aad was discontinued before 332. 

Vcfv thtjc d:rKl evidence on tbe subject of the tribal choregia 
ix- c«aecT can be drawn btxn documents at present avaOaUe. 
Tbe oc^T direct icionsaiicD which we have is given by Aristotle 

~JI KK nL 56. 3 r^HTKMB At mm ^i^miuit — <tgn (i opjpra') von 

vvMv-wv^. >u *■ ntrwtm * 9aX^ ^>h«i>. I liave advanced tbe 
^Tew eisev hsie, cc tbe snei:gtb of tbe history <rf the chorus, that 
ibe i-oc= ax>pcci:nnetit of cfaoregi by the archon to electioii 
t-T ihe tr.bes took place acer 350^ The hstory of tbe syocho- 
re^-^ in iev v>k=.>c«i, is is tavor of this view. There is nothti% 
h> show thM tbe inscrciioe cf the syocboregia in 406 was attended 
■.rr:!reii:*rr;T by ibe iocrease of tbe comedies to be presented 

'TV wti^OrMt f»r:»m. ti.45. »Op.ciL,p. I39 f, 

'j^ w ■TTv-:* <a -T^ Chxti m tbe Uler Gnck Dnaa': Am. Jobt- 

.y Google 


from three to five, as Wilamowitz assumes.' On the contrary, it 
seems to me extremely improbable, when one considers that the 
syncboregia was adopted under stress of great financial diffi- 
culties. When money became easier, at some time before 388,' 
it pleased the people better, instead of reverting to the old system 
of single choregi, to increase the number of comedies to be 
provided for. Nor is there evidence that the method of appoint- 
ing was changed at that time. Selection by the tribes came only 
when the synchoregia was given up. We may infer from Aris- 
totle's trp6Ttpor that the change was made not long before. The 
omission of all mention of the tribe in the two official inscriptions 
of this period which refer to the comic choregia (CIA. 11 971, fr. 
d, and CIA. IV, fr. A, p. 219) shows that the part of the tribe 
consisted only in the election of the choregi, and that it did not 
share in the victory, at least not in the same sense and degree as 
in the case of the cyclic choruses.* The selection of the comic 
choregi by the tribes was naturally suggested by the number (5) 
of the comic poets to be provided for, and was finally brought 
about at a time (i) when the cost of the comic choregia had 
bllea ofT considerably, so that the co-operation of two choregi 
for each poet was unnecessary, (2) when the number of rich 
citizens had diminished, so that it was easier to find five choregi 
than ten, and (3) when the burden of the liturgies was very 
unequally distributed. It would be most natural under such 
circumstances that the abolition of the sytichoregta should have 
been accompanied by the transfer of the appointing power to the 
tribes, for the main object aimed at, viz. a more equal distribution 
of the burden according to wealth, could not so easily be accom- 
plished if the appointing power rested with the archon. Now 

'Ariilot«l«s u. Athen, I, p. 154. note 144. The whole accoant of the 
choTCfia which Wilamowitz outlines heie leemi to me to be extremely 
inexact. He auumes that irpdrrpav itaSumi in Aristotle refers to an inter- 
misaion in the cnstom which prerailed from the beginning of the lelectioa of 
comic chor^i by the tribes. The only safe infeience, however, is that the 
appointing power was Tested in the archon from the time of the admiMion of 
comedy into the City Dionysia. and that it so remained until transferred to the 
tribes, not long before the time of writing. My statement of Wilamowiu'a 
position 00 this point on p. 3ig, n. 4; of my article on the Choms is inexact. 

' The first recorded occarrence of Rwe comedies was in 388, when the Plutns 
was presented. See Hypothesis to Flatus. 

'Navarre i» therefore not justified in saying, p. 16. n. 3: "ce farent des 
conconn non pins entre individnl mais entre tribas." 

, Google 


the period is which the economic conditions which I baw 
described are to be found in the highest degree was the period 
embraced in the financial administration of Lycurgus. The 
same tendency to throw upon the very rich the burdens which 
had previously rested upon them with less weight than upon the 
well-to-do citizens was exhibited during this period in still otbet 
directions. The propositions made by Demosthenes in 340 in 
regard to the symmories, for example, and the diversion of the 
theonc fund toward the expenses of war, accomplished in 338, 
were both steps in the same direction. The very rich were the 
chief opponents of these measures because they would suffer 
most heavily by the change. The abolition of the syodioregii 
and the transfer of the appointing power to the tribes was a very 
simple method of accomplishing, in the matter of the dior^^a 
reform for which a more complicated machinery was necessary in 
the case of the trierarchia. If we should assign this double 
change to ca. 340, I believe that we should not be &r astray. 
The advantage of the change to the moderately wealthy was 
ofiset by a loss of administrative power, which became the cause 
of great changes in the form ' and the manner of presentation of 
comedy ; for the tribes could not insist so efiectively as the 
archon on the maintenance of a high standard and a liberal 
supply of money on the part of the choregi. At a time when 
public spirit was at a low ebb, a strong directing band was the 
more necessary. 

The main results of this investigation into the history of the 
dramatic synchoregia may be summarized as follows. In 406 a 
law was passed providing for the conjunction of two citizens iu 
the tragic and comic choregia for the City Dionysia. Between 
399 and 394 — probably nearer the latter date — this law was 
repealed for tragedy, while for comedy the synchoregia was 
retained, and before 388 the number of comedies to be preseDte<l 
was increased to five. This arrangement lasted until about 340, 
when the old usage was reestablished. Probably at the same 
time the appointment of comic choregi was transferred from the 
archon to the tribes. The victory, however, continued to beloi^; 
to the choregus as official representative of the chorus and the 

Edward Caffs. 

'See Am. Jour. Arch. 1S95, p. 319. 

.y Google 


Plato more than any other ancient writer depends for the 
explanation of his doctrines upon argument by analogy. This 
was because he treated so largely of the unseen and intangible. 
We therefore find bis richer than any other Greek prose of the 
classic age, in the figures of comparison. And besides using 
such figures for his argument, he also employed them as literary 
ornament. Consequently they become very numerous in his 
pages and at the same time often very complicated. It is due to 
this latter feature that in the eyes of the Greek rhetoricians Plato 
appeared rapt in a Bacchic frenzy in the use of figures, and 
showed usages that to them seemed monstrous. 

The following pages treat of some of these comparisons which 
thus seem confiised or distorted by the touch of the bewildering 
god. Those of them which show similar irregularities will 
be grouped together; the causes of their confusion discussed; 
and the structure of certain larger groups of comparisons will be 
explained in detail. The reader may perhaps consider as not 
final some opinions that are expressed. But he will be indulgent 
on considering how much our present classifications of the figures 
of speech are in need of rehabilitation. 

I. — Mixed Comparuons. 

The simplest of these irregular comparisons (and under com- 
parisons are included metaphor, simile and allegory) is the mixed 
metaphor. It is likewise the most frequent. Although it leaves 
a rather confused impression on the mind, this impression is often 
by its very confusion rendered the more brilliant. Mixed meta- 
phor is, in tact, not so much a confusion of pictures as it b a rapid 
succession of them. Writers of a poetic strain do not avoid it. 
They may even seek for such a rapid series of pictures, provided 
that the scenes are not in harsh or disagreeable contrast. 

More than two scenes may be confused, and in extreme 
cases even five or six. Such a mixture occurs in the Republic 
at 533 d, where dialectic 'leads and drags upward the eye of the 
soul as it lies buried in barbaric filth.' Several more nearly 
related pictures are found in Ion 533 e ff., where poets are 
inspired by muses, are nw^ets, are Corybants, are Bacchae, are 

.y Google 

'at*». irt Mss. Hen: a iw e nc sotk mgtaybir aad SBt£le ocmr, 
an>i ihe iceoea acE arpannrri Banajj by daiMB or seateiKes. lo 
'Fnuwua )I f dure is i -n-t-ir i-^ Aie m -g-i— f-Tf cecminologT. It 
^•3(i3 : ' sot -m'^ea die rcct cc die ai aagi ies rebtxcs, >y^=™«*' of is 
'ca7->^ &-,a^^ BuuTT 3i^zis oicr a Jnts space oc Daw gainst 
^.Aay: ix is n> locger 2cie so cue ue ^in-rfug titments ti 
atnrsiamfsix,' Fever isui^es occor ^ Tli^i^EtBS 179 ^ vbere it 
•ip'raka Cif 'grikJEg b«ir^ xa see vbecbe- :a ricg is hale W rotten.' 
Toe nu>9t cotzc-^jfi caoo are vbeie ooIt two cm^cs are found, as 
;n Poiftlcia 310 / vxa tbe voc(£s ^mufiw and i^m6^. Here the 
tw) worils are the same part of speech aad arc sd ssde bjr side as 
%yafjnj:TA. la such cases ooe metapoor b isaailr more trite than 
tbe uher, and does not tall np in die oiiod so vnrid a pictnie. 

In deciding wbetlier a word b feit as a metaphor, we mosl 
onsidcT whether it could be replaced by some simpler and more 
literal expression. A feelii^ that a word b latber fine or tmtisaal 
:■ a sure proof that tbe anthor regards it as metaphorical ; w, at 
leant, u consciously borrowing it fiom some other sphere than 
that in which be uses iL In the Timaeus Plato b forced to 
employ words in entirely different senses from what they have in 
the rest of his works. He or perhaps bb Ionic fMvdecessws have 
thus made for themselves a set of scientific terms, not as b done 
at present by coining new words, but by osii^ old ones in new 
senses. In the Timaeus consequently it b allowable to find 
mixture of meuphor in the passage translated above and also in 
this : 85 ^ (jl'^^'i) X"''*''' '^ rp6itor ttnt wapij(a ' wXtutv It iwippiiiim, 
rg "op a^TTT Btpiionin Kpar^aaa rat trot df orafuu fi'nn Ikiinun > • ■ 
t\v<r4 ri T^i inixi' atirJBtr omu' wtitr wtiaiiara fwtf^' re ikrv$ipav. Scien- 
tific terms and phrases made of mixed metaphor are not confined 
to the Timaeus, but are scattered through the other dialogues; 
HH, for instance, Rep. 546 c miSitf/r m/aait mifuyvlf Sua Apfualat tfi' 
X4TIU. Tbe pun upon Jia-ow (Politicus 266 i) by suggesting its 
two meanings, 'biped' and 'second power,' shows that such 
wordd were far from being literal even in their technical meanii^ 
Underneath each Greek scientific word there lurked an older 
meanini; that made the scientific and later sense long retain the 
feeling of a metaphor. 

Among the words that introduce tbe various pictures in a 
mixed metaphor verbs usually predominate; as in Rep. $S6a 
oOrf ilri/UXt^v irMtror*, oflrt ^MjitflTO-or oMJ rov Srtvr r^ Srri ^XqpAA)0v> 
aiti lit$a!oo r> (o) taiapir ^r^ Vuintrro. Another case would be 
Rep. 440 C (ti Tf tal xaXciraiMi ml (viiiiax*i Tf AncoCin iiMn'y. Noun* 

, Google 


metaphors are more rare, as in Rep. 614 a, where the ISKa r< ml 
iuoA>l ftol Sapn of virtue are mentioned. Other instances of mixed 
nouD-metaphor are found in Lysis 214 a, Protag. 343 a and 
Gorgiaa 503 a. The noun-metaphor always seems stronger than 
the verb-metaphor. On this account several do not need to be 
united to produce an emphatic or telling effect, but when mixed 
together they are apt to stand in too harsh a contrast, unless 
carefully chosen. The adjective and adverb usually form very 
weak metaphors. Cases of mixture with them are therefore not 
easily traceable, unless perhaps the adjective is in the form of a 
participle. BaAunpa cal vptfirtpa ifdrf of Laws 936 a and fiil iiyul 
<(nix£ (rwounw aXki iraSpf are examples of adjective mixture. Rep. 
387 £ and Phaedo 82 e may serve as others. 

A mixture of metaphor consisting of verb and substantive is a 
frequent form when di£ferent parts of speech are used. Laws 
71S d *vf iw\ wvp ixminai, Of Republic 47O d rpoi^mi jnil /"jripa Ktlpta, 
or PolltlCUS 373 d bptipot atiTov r£>> (njdoXiav yiyKf^MW to nxr^mrra 
coi Xvihra if rg naff tavrir irporfp^ vtpM^ arpi^at aurfiti rt Kol trnuttp- 
9mt aBaroTOH ajrrir ml ayqpor Smtpyairrat, WOuld be gOod examples 

of this. A rather rare case is that where a noun and its qualifying 
adjective are each a different metaphor, as in &op&ip^ Papfiapm^ of 
Republic 533 d. 

The number of strongly mixed metaphors in the dialogues is 
very nearly as follows : 

Phaedo 14 



Cratylus 6 

AlcibiadesI 4 



Theaetelus 6 

Alcibiades II 2 



Sophist 9 

Charm ides i 



Politicus 12 

Lysis 3 



Philebus 8 

Euthydemus 2 



Symposium 5 

Protagoras 6 



Mixed metaphor arises from the placing together of several 
different metaphors. In like manner mixed or compound simile 
finds its origin. It is produced when the same thing is compared 
with several others, all at once, by means of a single particle or of 
some one word of comparison to introduce them. This figure is 
especially firequent in the Laws. This is probably because that 
dialogue was not so carefully revised and amplified as the others. 
Compound simile is thus indicative of great condensation of 
thought. It has no claim to be an ornamental figure, but belongs 
naturally in the note-book. 

.y Google 


An example of it m^^ be taken frmn Laws 641 a, where the 
law^nrer b compared at ooce to the captain, cbariotecf and 
gcnoaL At 961 f C be is compared to the captain, general and 
physician. Again, Laws 902 d, e the gods are compared to 
pbysidans, captains, generals, boosekeepers, statesmen, stone- 
masons. At 90S< to 906 tf they are compared to cbarioieen, 
faptaiiw, generals, physiciaiis, &rmeis, shepherds and sheep-dogs ; 
and the same compaiiscm is repeated at 906 e, with merely some 
variations in the order of tbc persons. 

In sucfa cases tbc subject is really cmnpared in thought with the 
genns as a whole, but the comparison finds its expression in (be 
enumeration t^all the concrete species. If^ however, the aumbtf 
of Spedcs is few, as in Theaetetus 3o6 d Aawtp dt KJnnrrpof q vb^; 
then little w no offence can be taken at this form of simile. The 
Polidcus is peculiar for carrying two of these compound similes 
as intermittent comparisons. Thus in this dialogue the physi- 
dan and trainer are combined in a comparison at 267 e and also 
at 295 c. The physician and captain are combined at lyjtS. 
and again at 301 d. In several instances in the other dial<^es 
an intermittent comparison is compound at its first occurrence, 
but becomes simple in all the other occurrences. 

The following list contains the compound similes, except those 
from the Politicus that are mentioned just above: — Crito 53a. 
Theaetetus 174 </. 175'. 206 d. Politicus 291 a. Theages 133& 
Charmides 165 e. Lysis 21 1 d. Euthydemus 276 a. Prolagoras 
3ii*and<, 312*, 3i3«.3i6<'. 317^354 "• Gorgias 4501/. 455 ^ 
474 ''i 503 d, 503 e, 5 1 2 ^. Meno 78 c. Hippias 294 a. Republic 
346 a, 360 i, 389 c, 405 6, 525 £. Laws 637 e, 641 a, 643 i and c, 
646^, 644*, 667*, 684c, 6gtc, 713d, 735 a, 739 c, 7641/, 8300, 
840 d, 849 e, S89 d, 902 d and e, 903 c, 905 e to 906 e, 945 e, 961 1 
to 962 a, 963 a. 

If the subject of a mixed metaphor or of a compound simile be 
taken as a centre, these two forms of comparison might be repre- 
sented by diagram thus : 


in which B and C are two different ot^ects with which A i> 
compared in close succession. 

II, — Secondary Comparison, 

Secondary simile or metaphor is another kind of complicalioa. 

It usually arises within some longer illustration or comparison, so 

that, figuratively speaking, it is a picture within a picture. More 

^d by Google 


abstractly, it is a case where A is compared with B, and then, to 
illustrate B, it is compared with C; or by diagram : 

Thus in Republic 495 e the ordinary man, in his attitude toward 
philosophy, is like a little bald tinker dressed up like a bride- 
groom about to marry his master's daughter. Secondary com- 
parison is, however, most distinctly to be recognized when the 
comparison of A to B, which preceded that of B to C, reappears 
after it also. Both stages of the comparison inust then have been 
in the writer's mind at the same time. When one succeeds the 
other, and especially when it follows it at some distance, this is 
far more doubtful; for the first may have been quite forgotten by 
the time the second comparison arrives. 

Secondary similes are most often attached to intermittent 
comparisons. The great length and extent of these latter fevor 
the addition of subordinate illustration. Thus at Theaetetus 193 c 
the soul is being compared to a block of wax. Then by subordi- 
nate comparison this wax-block has tracks imprinted in it into 
which a person may not on first trial be able to fit what he sees 
like people trying on the wrong shoe, or like the mirror, that 
changes right to \t&. Also at 194 e the same waxen block is 
KowpU^t and Xtd^tr by two more secondary similes. In the 
Polittcus at 368 a the statesman is compared to a herdsman, and 
then within this comparison the herdsman is compared at once 
with a rpo^, an lor/Nfr and a vu/i^mmii. This seems to be the only 
case of a compound secondary simile. 

Id the Republic, at the beginning of the seventh book, the 
weU-known comparison of the cave is made use of. At 514 J 
this cave is fiirthermore compared to a puppet show, and at 515 c 
the prisoner in the cave is cured of his bonds. In this case we 
consequently have a secondary simile and also a secondary 
metaphor. Other cases of this sort of secondary metaphor 

would be Republic 329c aM iOriifluyov &inrtp XvTTuvrd TIM lol 

Syptor Amnr^Tv arnxfrnyim. Republic 531 a, where persons listening 
to the music of the spheres are olsr /> ytirdnay ^i^i- eriptvi/itroi, 
Laws 793 '^ "^ rurrdntt- 4r oIcoftii^piTU' ipiiaiuaa ix fiiirav Sivappi- 
ovTO ovimiitrta lit rai/rhr roMi rs ^-uiatarra, and Phaedrus 275 d, 
where the written discourse is like the art of painting, whose 
offspring stand as though alive. 

These are all cases where the secondary comparison follows 
simile or allegory, but it is probable that secondary transfer may 

.y Google 


be effected by one of two adjacent metaphors. This peculiarity 
b hard to separate at times from mixed metaphor, inasmuch as 
the two differ in origin rather than in present use. The first 
transfer usually has its origiD in some colloquial or proverbial 
expression. This is afterward improved and made literary by 
being given a second transfer. Examples of this are Republic 
591 e, or better 573 d, where the tyrant in a person's soul rules 
and captains him ; and Philebus 38 c, d, where vovr is a kii^ 
whose duty is to rule and captain. Here, then, are three cases 
where the figure of the ship used once to explain the state is used 
over again as a figure in explaining Plato's psychology. The 
sentence, q i^ ^i^oc >««9> would also be an instance of this double 
transfer. Here the trvisfers are from wish to voting pebble and 
from voting pebble to soldier or other kind of combatant The 
single transfer is common in Plato in such phrases as ru.' ir i^^ 
6tui of Protag. 330 c. Had the former sentence been a case of 
mixed metaphor, the transfers would have been from wish to 
voting pebble and from wish to soldier. This, however, would 
seem a less natural method, although the result is the same in 
either case. 

Another instance of this double transfer is the famous wnile of 
Laws 773 </, criticised by the Pseudo-Longinus {^'2). In it the 
"city is like a mixing-bowl whose mad wine boils after it has 
been poured in, but is restrained by another sober god." Here 
the two elements in the bowl are by metaphor (or metonymy) 
identified with the gods of sobriety and intoxication. Again, by 
secondary transfer in the Phaedrus (241 ^) a lover becomes a 
^vrdr itrrpoKou ^gTamaivrat. Id Laws 690 d the participants in the 
discussion say onEmsv ^nfpfv n*a oMu/i^Ka/Mr ift it! at Stpawmw. In 
this instance mryii, from being a topographical word, has become 
physiological and then political. Also in Laws 717 c the expres- 
sion "words light and winged but of most heavy consequence" it 
thus probably a case of double transfer, the second image (the 
wings) being suggested by the first, and not arising independently 
from the same source. 

A peculiar use of secondary transfer by means of metaphor is 
one which involves the use of the same word twice, but eadi time 
in a new sense. By this means a sort of forced pun is constructed. 
Thus, for instance, irrdoiE, a 'revolution' or 'dissension' in the 
state, comes by one transfer in Sophist 328 a to mean bodily 
disease, as in the question tivor ta^t koI trriaai ou raMn nrifwcatj 
and then immediately by a second transfer at 238 b to mean some 

.y Google 


&ult of the soul, like injustice. The latter seotence is maw ipa 
■oi rtfffop T^ V^X^ wrifpiar Xtymrtn tpSAt ipoviur. Of COUrse a WOrd 
is frequently used in different transferred senses in discussing 
different sulQects or in widely separated passages. But the 
coatrast of two transferred meanings in the same passage, as is 
effected here, is quite rare. A contrast of original and transferred 
meaning is more common. By its means most of the puns are 
effected; as, for instance, those on the double meanings of rixot 
and t^fiof, each of which occurs several times in Plato. 

Secondary Comparison by Conversion. 
The cases of secondary transfer thus far discussed have involved 
three different objects ; but secondary transfer may also concern 
only two by a doubling back of the line of metaphor upon itself. 
This is occasioned for simile when this simile incloses within itself 
another simile or a metaphor that is its converse. This could be 
shown by diagram thus : 


Here A is first compared with B and then B compared with A. 
Such cases are necessarily rare in careful writing. They probably 
all arise either from inaccurate thought or poverty of expression 
and they cause a sort of circle of analogy. It may, however, 
happen that B cannot be described without borrowing words 
from A. In so far it would be excusable ; but, of course, B so 
described can prove nothing in regard to A. This latter case 
arises in the Laws and Ttmaeus, when, in the comparison of man 
to God, God is described in terms of man. 

As an instance of the conversion of a comparison we may take 
Laws S40 d. Here men are compared to birds, and then within 
this comparison metaphors are used which represent the birds as 
men (ipStM, yaiiMn, dyroi). In Laws 720 c and 722 a occurs a case 
of rather more indirect conversion. The unworthy lawgiver is 
compared to a physician who treats slaves, and then within this 
passage the slave-doctor is compared to a tyrant. Most of the 
conversions are found, however, in certain large groups or 
systems of intermittent comparison, where, from their great 
length, conAision in the figures may the more easily arise. These 
cases will be discussed further on under the head of ' Argument 
by Analogy.' 

A figure and its converse may of course have arisen separately 
when they are quite distant from each other in the text. There 

.y Google 

336 AMociCAtr jociurAi. of rmLOLOcr. 

» thai no eoirfasMia or dcwA lr ag m ibe tboi^it. Thos by an 
mccnmttcat co m p aiM oa b«^ iimii iE at 723 d in the Laws and 
cwfii^ at 932 «, tbe preambie of a law is caDed its prelode and 
the bv itself aa ode. la Laws 700 i and 800 4, by tbe exact 
COt w e ne at this ^ure a sdain of mmic is caDcd a law. Yet tbe 
two ngims being osed in tbe (Ilv.ii3mum at dinc/uit subjects, are 
not OKifawtA with cacfa other. The one b mei^ by acddent the 
convene of the other, witboot any doable tnosfer having taken pbce. 

Metaphor b also subject 10 cx M ver sJ on jost as stmile. But as 
with secondaiy Handier at metaphor, so also here ihe ocnirTOUx 
of this converted roetapbor b moch more difficult to detect than 
its corresponding kind of simile. It needs a carefiil companwo 
of the usage in the antbor and in tbe lango^c Usually one of 
tbe transfers ts, as before, iiteraiy and the other is popular. Aa 
example occora in Republic 530 h. or better in Politicus 301 1, 
where a certain sort of ruler is called a " kii^ such as grows in 
hives, solitary, pre-eminent alike in soul and body." This b^att 
shows the return of that transfer which called the largest bee in 
the hive a ' king.' The hive was first compared to the stale by 
those who used the term ^oviXcn for queen bee, and then in this 
passage, as often elsewhere in Plato, the state is compared (o tbe 
hive. This tenn 'king' is thus brought back to the vciy plxx 
from whence it came. Another case is tbe 'laughing wave' (Amp 
■Cpa iryAmi) that SocTates fears will overwhelm him with scorn 
and disrepute in Republic 473 e. It is now the wave of laugbKr, 
but is probably derived from a laughter of the wave, an arv-if^ 
yAovfu, that preceded it, and of which it b possibly a parody. 
The phrase ' conquer oneself b very often used in Plato. It b a 
very primitive form of the comparison of soul to state or of 
passions to warring factions. When, however, in Laws 627 a tbe 
city b spoken of as rulit^ or conquering itself, thb figure seems 
also to have returned to where it started. It has gone from dty 
to man and then from man to dty. 

The effect of conversion b also produced when a literal word 
stands in close grammatical relation to one of tbe figurative words 
of a simile or metaphor. It produces a confusion not of two 
difierent pictures, as in the case of the mixed or secondary 
metaphor, but of the picture and of the real life. Its illogical 
character and inconsistency produce a sort of shock, as in Sophist 
366 c, where a painting is called a "man-made dream for men 
that are awake" (olov irap Mpiunwmr iyptrfopiaai). Another case 
would be Republic 535 e arantpm- V^xTc, Phaednis 243 d tmiff 



Uyy olov SK^vpia oio^ an'cwXva'av^i, Alcib. I 135^ napd aol iuiof 
Ttuvat ipvra wArrt/Nir, aod possibly Republic 473 c, explained just 
above as a conversion of metaphor. The fiou^fimc oZrac of the 
simile of Laws 773 d also contains this feeling of a mixture of 
literal and metaphorical words, especially as it is immediately 
followed by the more regular metaphor mj^ottot Mpov e*av. These 
cases are all of noun and adjective mixture. Less forcible are the 
mixtures formed of a noun and of its genitive of material or 
possession. An example of this would be Republic 569 6 tptiy^y 

t* ninrv^ SovXfiot iKtaSifnf, tit irvp thniktr btaiiortim Ar inwnrrancait tli}. 

Other cases would be Republic 566 d iV t^ Hiftpif riji iriktm, 
Pbilebus 15 e ^tr6t\i &t rira trocar tlpiiKir 6riamip6v, Republic 552 C 
w6aiiita riAtMt, Sophist 323 a, where the sophist is a hunter, (irl y^ 

Kol vorafuvt Mpoot at nmi irXoureu cal »«hifmt olof XdfWMir i^Oifmit- 

With such cases as these we may compare the Psalmist's (105, 
16) : " He brake the whole staff of bread," or the passage where 
Euripides calls Cithaeron "the snow-nourishing eye of Artemis" 
(Phoen. 803). When the grammatical relation of literal and 
^urative word is less close than in the examples given above, 
this feeling of contradiction dies out It is entirely absent when 
they are in different sentences or clauses, or when one is in the 
subject and the other in the predicate portion of a sentence. 

in. — Argument by Analogy. 
A combination of comparisons rather easier to unravel than the 
last few varieties of transfer is the ai^ument by analogy. It 
arises when any object is compared with another by secondary 
and also by simple comparison. It would be represented graph- 
ically thus : 

and it forms a real analogical argument. Thus A is like B, then 
B like C, and finally A like C. 

A very simple instance of such an ailment by analogy is 
found in Republic 509 a-d ff. In this system truth is compared 
to the sun, the sun to a king, and finally the truth to a king. The 
scheme of the three figures might be arranged thus : 

Truth, the sun (509 a-d). 
Truth, a king (597 e). \ Sun, a king (509 1^516 b). 

Usually such systems are of considerable extent, and some or all 

Digitized by Google 

JiX^J-'TAy ,"J'rFjr:tI It* J^EZZ^ZCSST. 

sec 'a i-iftn HT KBufxat la-In^sK. jz !'' ' i"^ p>m o^ ss caane 

la th« PJiaedo one of these sncca 
pkxXf td tnatvecs^ its beui cocipansce. In it the soul and 
bo«Jf nf ouo are compared loibe nn^cacd cbonb ctfa lyre, and 
tlwm tjy conr^Tsiof] the lyre is tmmed^oiel}- compared to a man 
^^5 ^M C}. hf a Mcood tramfe i miBic is aom said to be divine, 
jLod bence by tingle tnasfer sool can be sud to be divioe. Tbe 
main omf/amon Ctbat of a man to a lyre) is distinct and cooad- 
ttaiAy eiimded in tfae Pbaedo, and occupies a more promiDent 
p\u-^ in this dialogue tbaa did in tbdr diak^nes ddier of iIk 
main comparisont in tfae two a y s l euis pieviousty considered. 
The scheme of this system in tbe Pbaedo, anai^ed sjrmmetncallr, 
would be : 

Man a lyre (85 e-gs a). 
[Converted into lyre a man at 85 e-S6 <;.] 
Soul, divine ; but the body I Music, divine; bnt the instru- 
mortal (So a-95 c). \ ment mortal (86 a-(). 

//"">. . 

Soul * Divinity 

Wo come now to a much larger system of this sort of analoj- 
li'itl rruNoning contained in the Republic Its main comparaoD 
— Iliut of the soul to the state — pervades tbe whole dialt^w 
ns a fruiDcwork. It is thus by no means mere ornament, but 
cunirs to form a very extensive, oft-reiterated and essential part 
of PIaIu's thuught. In the group of comparisons that illustrate 

i by Google 


this chief propositioii (Soul = Sute), the state is successively 
compared with the human body, a sheepfold, a harmony, a ship, 
a wild animal, a bird's-nest, a hive, a many-colored shawl, and 
the argimient is closed hy comparing the soul in turn with each 
of these. All but five of these seventeen comparisons are inter- 
mittent, and some of them practically run the entire length of the 
dialogue. Some also are ao commonplace and so useful outside 
of the system that, although they should be logically used last, 
they come to stand first in point of fact The order of the 
proportions is consequently open to variation, but in all cases 
the soul is the first term and the state the middle term of the 
analogical syllogism that they form. 

If we trace, for example, the comparison of the soul to the 
body, we shall find that various forms of this comparison are 
prevalent throughout Plato. It is in &ct a well-established part 
of the language of his psychology. This figure is consequently 
not held back until the comparison of the state to the body may 
he begun. Oo the contrary, it begins before the latter, runs part 
of its course parallel with it, and outlasts it. In the list given 
below of the occurrences of the two figures in the Republic, the 
figure of the body politic has its occurrences in the even and 
paragraphed lines, the other figure — the comparison of the soul 
to the body — has its occurrences in the lines which are joined by 
the curved strokes. 

•352 *, 354 «-*. 358 '■ 

\ 37*«-373*- 


( 3820 389 *-c. 

,391 '• 
{ 399 «f- 

.401 c, 409<i-4ioa, 411 d, 
( 425 e, 426 d. 

444 c-e, 458 a. 
( 459 c-d, 463 c, 464 b, 470 d. 

{ 489*- 

V90 c. 495 </-496 e. 

( 496^- 

^498 b, 503 e, 518 d, 533 b, 526 b, 535 *, 539 *. 

( 544 ''. 553 e, 556 '' 562 <:-564 *. S^? '^■ 

^576 fl, 579^,582^,586(1, 59211,595*, 605c, 6o8e, 609^-611 c. 

^d by Google 


In such an extended and intertwined pair of figfures it is impos- 
sible to be sure which came first in Plato's estimation. But *e at 
least know that the middle term is the state and the first temi the 
soul, whenever the two figures are thought of as fbnniog a 
syllogism or as proving anything when taken in conjunction. 

The comparison of the sUte to a sheepfold begins, as it should, 
before the comparison of the soul to a sheepfold, and also outlasts 
it. The soul-harmony is a very common figure in Plato, and so 
quite evidently leads up to the state-hanqony and sugeestt iL 
Consequently the usual order is here reversed. On the otho 
hand, the ship-of-state figure naturally precedes the ship of the 
soul, as it is so much more Eamiliar. The reverse is true of the 
figure which represents the state as a wild animal. This follo« 
at some distance the figure where the soul is regarded as a wild 
animal. The smaller figures at the end of the list are all less 
familiar. They therefore begin, as they logically should, on the 
state side. Thus the state a bird's-nest begins before the soul i 
bird's-nest ; the state a hive comes before the soul a hive, and the 
state a himation precedes the soul a himation. The scheme can 
thus be symmetrically arranged for this system : 
Soul compaTed to sute (339<'-6o8 h). 

human bodf (3S> «-6ll f). 
sheepfold (440 d). 
hannonjr (401 ^91 d). 
ship (573 ^91 (). 
wild animal (410^-606 a). 
himation (561 i). 

human body (373 1^6; c|. 
tbeepfold (3750-539 ')• 
hannon; (430^431 a), 
ship (389^51*). 
wild animal {493 ^' 
bird's-nest (5480). 
hive (330^567^). 
himation (sS7'-5SBi'). 

Several cases of conversion and of further transfers are not 
shown in this scheme of the figures as given above. They nay. 
however, be explained separately here : 

I. — At 444 d a comparison of the human body to the state is 
inclosed within a part of the comparison of the soul to a bumin 
body. It consists of the metaphors apantr, KponiirAu, Aft™ ^'^ 
apxt<r«iu- There thus arise at this point of the system two cases 
of secondary transfer. As, however, there are only three ol^ecis 
involved — the soul, the state, the body — one of the transfers 
necessarily is the converse of the other. This may be shown by 
the following diagram : 

Soul — "Body 

, li.ed by Google 


II.— At 463 c the comparison of the state to the human body 
is immediately converted within itsel£ This consequently gives 
rise to a tertiary transfer. It is not, however, a very important 
^^e, as it consists of the single metaphor ipx''^^^ 1't>e tenns 
are the same as in the former diagram. The curved arrows serve 
to show that the converting figure is within the converted one 
and not outside of it as in I. 

Soul >Body 

III. — At 530 b the comparison of the state to a hive is converted 
in the manner described several paragraphs above, and at 552 c, 
556 a and 564 c it is carried a step further by comparing the hive 
to a human body. In other words, evil passions are compared 
to evil citizens, evil citizens to drones, and drones to diseases. 
There are thus two tertiary comparisons connected with this hive 
comparison, one of which doubles back on itself and the other is 
carried straight onward. These two tertiary comparisons have a 
secondary transfer and some single transfers combined with them 
so aa to allow of several conclusions being drawn from them thus : 

-State^ ^State. 

S^I ^Hive Soul-J-Hjye 


IV. — At 567 the state is compared by secondary transfer with 
a chariot ; but from this no soul-chariot is deduced, so that the 
figure remains merely ornamental. 

V. — At 609 c by the metaphor irari)pia the comparison of soul to 
human body is converted within itsdf. Two cases of secondary 
transfer are thus formed. One of these moves its two steps 
forward, while the other advances one step to meet it and then 
immediately turns back on itself. The scheme would be like this : 



In the Laws the system that we have just discussed in the 
Republic is repeated. It possesses, however, much less variety 
than before, as will be seen from the symmetrical grouping of its 

.y Google 

rrxJfAi iw 5 

i^«,«^ 351A 

X :^ Rqnbfic, so bere 
1 3e ~ Jas' or kft-haod 
^an^ diev2c voy trite asdal 
xsx. amoneat tD arad asii% 
r JK rr^^-aaod side have been 
'~ ~'-— ' 3a<L M a m w cr . already 
L oc [be RepoUic so 
r ^' ■3.: j i !■ ai :^ ) !' .vm t \ Mn n xr t hr Bmch siiDpler 
=s ^iv = 'ijc 1^^ lit a^ :31s Ms^iiL. as tband in the 
. s ^ :£:£=::« -iM^-jfTir j£ SOL and seafic. vith fiide or do 

=1.- lEO. "^ .' :2e i " i| fji y pi « :fpe statte to a humao 
^arer^j. TJis- a ne iiac «aae w&esv am intenDlttoit 
c 3 atso aianmittenL Tbesc 
K s. :3c pongiaph on simple 
- ^^ers'-iJt. 50 n-tt :a«r' id acr jebi » be re-explaincd here, 
r'ae ^S tt. ' Jta vcica :k :2ie one ^ :^x ^kA far Republic [11] 

i:::^ :f7?e f^r-Kca i: x xues jctg •vmr-r^ and Txficd cbafacter. 
r*ia; ss -K=- j-iigu s inuBonf ok s ompansoo of the 
iCiK; -M -zx. iEi-=3e s y-iJaicT F-a^s opiiuOB ai 7I3«, and 
tt UM ci:^ i(f!^s n"^ -ar^^c^aaa «at 3eied from djoe to 969J, 
n t^ A •i.-^s^ :2« «r:rx n =ie I^ 'W gl ^^ is r^;afded as god- 
!:£■; liAt .;:- -ae. TiJC^ ^ :3is way cbe ^rstoa suits aootber 
s* *«;•» n :n« ?::.:::>:iis wlicic 3e Iaw^Iici is also compared » 
Ovv:. It £ L^%; r'ur: s ^ts;^ ssialv »> bare tbe less imaged id 
i-?e ^'^ijt? .K»i TtA r:e £r^os s :^ ios. Yet, notwithstanding 
=1 s iv- t aewrs j& :ic«^i *. 3s-= •-905 * God was compared 
»-.i rw ..*»^-.<s ;^« ire exaci JKC tei ae of this ^ure. Probably, 
V.-*ir*'K a s-ca * ;».-cs i.^o^:3e as lie Laws the point of view 
^ i -« i».tR>f^bj; »r'C-cr-.;=^ w :ie ssbject under discussioD. Pro- 
» ^.v-x'A X £t« X-.— ?« :g-.=^ b acoowd here, so as to bring the 
X .»•* r-vV ".■ -v »*.;i :b? T-saecs aad Polhicas. 

r s* s ~ '« « '^ c^i rcf :^Efe=s God as a wtvkmao {it^trnpiit) at 
^\s'.- '^ si'^.-JL «\i i=;o rarjoos kinds of workmen, architects, 
Hk^vvvvx «M c<'>rr$. vi^ec ^c^ad on tbe state side of the system. 
\^-* Avx*^t\v-?«.^o ■::h s^r^Iii t^ores in tbe PoUticus andTimaens 

.y Google 


shows that a correlation is to be expected here in the Laws, 
although it is much less perfectly expressed. 

The comparison of the state to a human body or the lawgiver 
to a physician plays a part in the state- universe system as well as 
in the soul-state system. There thus arises a combination of a 
sii^le, a secondary and a tertiary comparison that may be 
represented as follows by separate diagram : 

Swil 1 Universe 
The complete system of the state-universe is as follows : 

State » Uni*er>e, or lawgiver a God (630^-969*). 

[ConTened into God a lawgiver at Sga ^-905 f.] 

State *. baman bodjr, lawgiver a phy- Universe > haman body, Gods its 

sician (6190-969 J). physicians (S96 tf-967 </). 

State a ship, lawgiver a captain (639^ Universe a ship, the Gods it* captains 

9630). (Togi-^rf). 

Lawgiver a general (641 0-96} a), Gods are general) (901 •'-907 a). 

Lawgiver a charioteer (69a d-ToS d). Gods are charioteers (90s e^tjob e). 
Lai^ver a herdsman (735 a). Gods are shepherds or herdsmen 

(713^-907 a). 
Lawgiver a workman (736 «-94S (). Gods are workmen (901 1). 

As in the former system in the Laws and to some extent in the 
Republic, so here the order of the comparisons, logically speak- 
ing, b rather varied. The Universe is, however, certainly the 
middle term, and the conclusion is generally the second propo- 
sition to be stated rather than the third. The argument is con- 
sequently not a very important one, since the natural order of 
the propositions is so often violated. In fact the comparisons 
form a loose correlation rather than a logical syllt^ism. 

The main comparison in this system, as was noticed above, is 
converted at 892 0-905 e. It is doubtful whether the main com- 
parison, in fact, belongs to this part of the dialogue, and docs not 
rather give place here to its converse. The question for the 
whole dialogue is mostly determined by the prevalent notion in 
the Laws that the lawgiver is divinely inspired and that the law is 
a work of God. 

At 735 a, within the comparison of the lawgiver to the herds- 
man, occur the metaphors xaSapiiiw, xadapu ^nd dMcadafp^ai. These 
evidently indicate a transfer from the herdsman to the physician. 

.y Google 


There thns resolt two cases of secondary transfer, one of tertjary 
ant^ one ipinp l^ transfer tlms : 

Lav^ver — f-» Herdsman 

In Ibe Timaeus there is another case of a very widely extended 
system of comparisons. This system is based upon a figure that 
compares the human body to the universe. It occupies in this 
dialogue an even more important place than do in the Laws 
either of its systems or the microcosm in the Republic. Just as 
there was in the Republic an example of the true sute in the 
heavens, so in the Timaeus there is an example of the ideal man 
there. The phDosopher or creator, as the case may be, fixes his 
eye ever on the ideal as he copies it out in his constniction or 
description of the real. This thought prevails in both dialogues: 
this desire for the realization of the divine vafabny^a (Rep. 500;, 
Tim. 38 ^) that can be seen only by the eye of the soul. 

In the Timaeus God first copies the knowable and thus 
produces a visible universe. This is then recopied into the 
celestial bodies known to astronomy and the terrestrial bodies 
known to natural history. In this way man comes to be like the 
universe by being a copy of it And in this way arises that 
comparison of man to the universe that runs through the Timaeus. 
It is thus strictly in accordance with Platonic doctrine that the 
less should be understood by being seen through the greater. 
As the soul is understood by comparison with the state in the 
Republic, so is man to be understood by comparing him with the 
universe in the Timaeus. Yet as the 'greater' object, or in other 
words the universe, has hardly any language by which it can be 
described, unless it borrows it from other sources, this first 
comparison is immediately converted by metaphors in which the 
universe becomes tacitly compared to man. Taking any one of 
the analogical arguments, the digram would be as follows: 




Except for this single set of conversions, the subordinate figures 
in this system of the Timaeus are extremely regular. Those that 
should logically stand first or last do so in fact For the Timaeus 

.y Google 


is pre-eminent among Platonic dialogues for its logical unity of 
plan. Some of the subordinate figures are in several cases com- 
posed of very faint metaphors. For this reason it may happen 
that some of the fainter ones have been omitted from the list of 
correspondences given below. The more important ones are, 
however, the following : 

Hnmaii body is lik« tbe uoiTcrse (3B a-ga b). 

[CoDTeried into aniverse a haman bodjr (3B j-gs #).] 

Body sowQ vith its component parts Universe is sown with it* component 

(JO 1-91 if). parts (33 f-56 i). 

Elements of body in military order Elements of universe in military 

(45 *-88 <)■ order (30 a-jj i). 

Elements of body are bound together Elements of nniverse are bound to- 

(43«-«S (). gelber (31 c-a,\ i). 

Body turned on a lathe (6gc-73f). Universe turned on a lathe (33 i). 

Body a ciiy or hoQse {44 ^-91 /), Universe a city (34 ^^-48 a). 

Body a woven fabric {jac-jgd). Universe a woven fabric (36«~4i^). 

Human soul is divine (44^-90^). Universal soul is divine (36^41/). 

Body a chariot (44 t-B^ d). Universe a chaKot (41 1). 

Elements of body do battle (61 c-6S<). Elements of universe do bailie {56^ 
63 i). 

Finally, there is in the Politicus, besides the short system 
previously discussed, another which is identical with the larger 
system in the Laws. Like the latter, it consists of a number of 
primary and secondary transfers grouped about the comparison 
of the statesman to God. These subordinate figures do not, 
however, extend over so much of the dialogue, or play 30 
important a part in it, as do the state-universe and man-universe 
systems in the Laws and the Timaeus. The arrangement of the 
figures is as follows : 

Slatesniao compared to God (myth 36S ^-376 d). 
[Converted into God compared to statesman at 371 1^273 <.} 

( physician (ssg a-301 d). f physician (a6q rf-374 ■>). 

Suiesman a \ ^''"''" (^'-3^')- Cod a J *"'"''*' (»7o<i-373i). 

I herdsman (361 iZ-sg;/). 1 herdsman (271 1/-3761/). 

I captain (196 <-304 a). \ captain (373 e). 

In the Politicus God and the universe are not represented as 
a wapaittytta of anything, but are described in the form of an 
allegory or 'fable told to children' (268 e). This is, moreover, 
effected in a way that does not convert tbe main figure as often 
as in tbe Laws and Timaeus, but only at 371 d^px*"' ipx^rf*, and 
373 £ modpjfoiTtc. 

^d by Google 

,1. 3F ?SIZ.^L.2in. 

Ar leic d-'TcA s -ise •^■■p*"*'" n' :fic MJuaai^L m a piiysctu 
a T.-vn-'^rTcd. mil die ■pnvacasL 'ttt'*"'^ aa > saoesnaB. Time 
TkT". ■•j-MsirnaKaAv joxaseO. iiSE rma c^t^ at — ■■—*^*y tmafer, 
•vu* 11' »*iii-ji s ^uiiwiieci xai. die aiber i 
ami Viet -a die a 

At 3ij7*-95ai, 
app«tn as > »«Mnraw. Tbe □ 
»ad ioy^, ■ii»ijiJijp {'298 f;. Tbe « 
th« caae joM cnuuleTed, except for tbe sofaodtDtiaa of the tan 
«Apf^tl for pbyvciaji. 

We b«7e xhctdj gone owcr t«o dlfe re Bt cbaa^ of comiiarisoni, 
the mixed and the wtcxmdatj, together with a Tanety of ibc latter 
produced by convenioo. Alliirdgmq>,as we Dtnr see,Bfbnned 
iry varioutif combiniiq; examples of the aecond das with eadi 
flrtber or with nniple comparaoo. The result is the analofpcal 
argument Of this two inttsnces each were Iband in the Republic, 
Lawt and Politictn ; and one apiece in the Phaedo and Timaeos. 
Probably there are in Plato other less iinpmiaot ones ; but tbey 
Mrs certainly of much smaller size and Bdnter figurative power. 
Two of the analogical arguments examined above are of soch 
Importance that even the largest dialogues do not exhaust tben. 
The compariton of the soul to the state forms the dominant 
tlirine of the Republic, and reappears in the Laws. The panl- 
IfllNin belween the statesman and God pervades the Laws and 
thp I'ollilcuii and, in a modified form, runs through the Timaeui 
Iron) itH bfitlnning to its end. 

tiNivtRKT) orCfliCAiw. Georgb B. Hdssbt. 

.y Google 


The particle quatmiis, composed of quam + vis, ' bow you 
please,' 'as much as you please,' 'however much,' (cf. also quam 
vuUis, quam velM, quam volent, and the stronger form quanltan 
vis), appears first as an adverb. From this startup-point it pro- 
ceeds in a steady development toward the conjunction, the path 
of its transition to its use with the subordinate verb being through 
the adjectives, adverbs, and phrases which it modifies as adverb. 
In tracing this development and the further history of quamvis 
>s a conjunction, the usual divisions of Roman literature have 
been used as being the most convenient boundary posts. 

I. Pre-Ciceronian Period. — Before the time of Cicero the 
ori^nal adverbial use prevails almost exclusively. In the few 
cases where g. can be said to have the force of a conjunction it 
has the present subjunctive, never the indicative. With the 
exception of an imcertain passage in Mardus Vales (cf. Baehrens, 
F, P. R,, p. 36; Festus, ed. Miiller, p. 165; Holtze, Syntaxis 
Priacorum Scriptorum Latinorum, II, p. 311) it appears first in 
Plautus, who uses it as pure adverb with adjectives or adverbs 
ten times, and twice with the subjunctive in a subordinate clause. 
But in the latter cases q. has no influence in determining the 
mood. For example in Bacch. 82, q. subito venias, it has attached 
itself to the volitive subjunctive venias through the medium of 
the modified adverb subito and so made a subordinate clause of 
concession. This is the first stage of the transition. The second 
stage, i. e. the dropping of the adjective or adverb as go-between, 
thus leaving g. as pure conjunction, did not take place until the 
time of Varro. The only other examples of the use of q. with a 
verb (subjunctive) during this period are Cato, de Agricutt. i, 6, 
and Comificius, Rhet ad Her. 4, 46, 59. It is used as adverb once 
in Cato, twice in Lucilius and four times in Comificius ad Her. 

.y Google 

i+3 AMiutscAy joct^Ai. or philology. 

U. dzsrvuBs Psrimd. — Efeie tbe ne of f . as adverb is sdll io 
^ice. bvt tbe mtxt crmmnejat onstnxtioa is with the subjooctive. 
Tbts t^wrf"" ■ 3 prebablv dne to tbe inflaeace of Ckero. Tbe 
obiicacve with •f. appeals iar tbe fint time, and occanonally q. is 
oaeii ^ a oaoae -jidepeiKfemiT of a vcrfaw In Varro, de L L 9, 56, 
,f. res 3amr2 soiait, iir die fint time tbe sabjonctive is used wilh- 
>}uc m *iv«rb gr KSeccve to lecai ye die adverbial force of q. 
\jrT<3 tisQ xerns to adbrd tbe first instance ctf f. with tbe indka- 
;:»«. Je r. r. i 33 ,if-iIler'J la aBf case tbe early employment 
•M 311S ■— rmr—w-T-i^ sds by sidc vTth die snbjoDCtive goes to sbo* 

y^-txTQ. s ae freax m^oticy of cases, oaes tbe subjoactife, 
tEBBklv a ~ie ^mmi ccaBC. Tbe qoaittitative force of ;., bo«- 
<im-. a cmnmuaiy m be seOL It is with Gcero that tbcR 
^i^-3s :ii« xse ot~ /. «idt at ^ e ctl ie a and phrases, even withabU- 
Kv«5 ais<<>uce. JL vexhiesB .jaoaes, dne partly to the nmple omis- 
s:>>u .-f :he ««r3. pwrtiy 3J tbe exttnsioa trf" tbe wginal adverbial 
x-(-c« .11 UM pMrroe. This isage finally extends itself even to 
';Mrr:op>i:$. Oucsck ot Ccoo it appears bat twice in this period, 
VjiTv. j« r. r. I. 4. i ami Pab. Syri Sententiae 501 (Ribbeck). 
Ooftw •jfvej^;» c;ii act aae tbe iodicativc with g. The only 
■^«<fes$j]C« a-T wis-ca tftere b aay ambority is very doubtful, pro 
Ki^ r\«st t 4.' 

i'. « c-i :i« suL-«r'^'*=^ '^" a«5«tiT«s (e. g. de Or. 3, 103), and 
y»j««fi^- .it;t i*:i tie s«":ri-43t:tiv^ i^e. g. N. D. 3, 36, 88), are con- 
st* ■Jv^^.-us ua; *r< aret w-.:i arst ia Ckcra The forrDcr occon 
!n.X^»MC-N i,tr;rw*-is, iKWcallT ia writers of the Silver Age,' 

l^^if ,tivf ■jf.'se WT-wrs CI ui^ period are very sparing in their 
tkMf o. f. CiffSif j;:ii SCust ecirloy it exdnsively as an adverb, 
tftv X'i'itvt ^-itcw ,S^ vi, 4. J". a=d tbe Utter twice {Cat. 23, 6. 
>i ^ ;■" -k;- > 4^ -s.^'- Tiere b a tendency to connea y. «itb 

■>^ ;;.■■. K.,1-, 5,^ :ir». KliT«r. T"'t-~-~~. Nij^jeidey, Ten Brink. 
S.i-«-. X.. ■-■».. rw J-i. 3 »,^^r»i by EtracfCl. G«or£ei, RitB»»M. 

'!,^ .—..^ k-v .- >*.-?, j.ict.;*;; HeiaiorfoB C1C.N.D.3.36.M; 

.y Google 


the iDdicative, e. g. Nepos, Mil. 2, 3;' Lucr. 3, 403. 4, 426; Dirae, 
103; Vatioius, as quoted by Quintilian 6, 3, 60, q. reus sum.* 

The subjunctive, however, remans the favorite construction. 
Catullus does not use the indicative with q. at all. 

III. Period 0/ Augustus. — The adverbial use shows a marked 
^iog off. The subjunctive still remains the most usual con- 
struction, while the use with the indicative, which formed only 
about live per cent, of all the cases in the Ciceronian period, now 
forms over thirty per cent. This increase is due exclusively to 
the poets. The subjunctive is still preferred by Vergil, who has 
the indicative but twice (Eel. 3, 84; Aen. 5, 542). Tibullus, Pro- 
pertius, Hyginus, Vitruvius, and especially by Seneca the elder. 
On the other hand, Horace has the indicative with g. nearly 
twice as frequently as the subjunctive, and Ovid, who uses g. 
almost as olten as Cicero and Seneca the younger, has a decided 
fondness for this construction. The Astronomica of Manilius 
shows the indicative in two places, 2, 313 and 39S. The only 
example in the prose of this period of g. with the indicative is in 
Livy 2, 40, 7.' He does not use the subjunctive with g. at all; 
but the adverbial use is more strongly represented in him than in 
any other writer of this period. 

In Reisig-Haase, Vorlesungen uber lat. Sprachwissenschafl, 
§467, the statement is made tha^ in good prose, the indicative 
with q. is used only in such a way that the force of g. is equally 
divided, on the one side joining itself to the verb in the sense of a 
simple it or cum, and on the other side strengthening an adjacent 
adjective. This is true so far as this passage in Livy is concerned, 
q. infesto animo — perveneras ; but as a general statement it is 
wrong. Quamvis is often used in good prose writers without 
divided force, e. g. Varro, de r. r. 8, 33; Nep. Mil. 2, 3; Sen. de 
Brev. Vit 6, 4, de Ben. 3, 32, 5; Col. 7, 3, 4. 6, 24, 4. 12, 18. 
Moreover, this divided force does not appear with the indica* 

' Cf. Gerber, De conj. temporis et de conj. conce»(. uni T&cUeo (GlUcksladt, 
Pn>|[ram, tS74). fin-: " Eirorem HuMi ad Reisig §305 a, p. 467. corrificre 
Telim, qai dicit ' Nicht ans der Cic. Zeit kann der Ausdruck Nep. Mil. 3, 3 
Mm, d«na lo reden nur spltete wie Tacilui.'" 

'Cf. Reiii(;.HMKe,Vortesun2en Ob. lat. Sprachwiisenicbari, §467; Schmalz, 
UebcT die Latioitai des P. VatiDini (ManDheim, Prog.. tSBi). 

'The indicative in thii doubtful paM^e is now pretty generally accepted. 
So Schm&li, Kahnast, KUbner, Weissenbora and Mailer. Riemann, SjOstnuid 
(Qaibai lemporibni modisqae gnamvis, etc., utantur). 

, Google 

,-3C ,:m-T...-r —ss^tJL ze Fmn.QLOCY. 

t:^ -or- nic JK =■ ;^^ jcrateri ivt 41 vaa ^ed in this wiy 
.-c^TTa^- w= .=£ -cz: ' ;a c =. rE. au «as cnaMaodj so osed. CC 
""«i. iMTE 7- :c— w-K. L T^i: Oca. GoX Ekg. 67; Hot. 

r 31 rns : 

Ti— ■■ -— f :- X ^as " ■ ■;— -^j^ , :iie "■r'-^"' * appeais bat four 
:r-aigi .c?^ =e -^ - ■ -^f— v ^ x ^ex acKy nc qdcs ae freqneotty 
I pKJcr r es nearly 
s w&o eiiplo]r f . at all, tlie 
ros. Ga^snmcns, Phiednis. 
_.:rtr.:t- ^u.t:& ^rr^.^^^.a — s^QS Aicomi^ Panpooms Hda, 

." ^v ar-i ^-i-^r. Ts; vra^--i laiu^ioKJaa ai the indicative 
.&ii<.'S s- scU ^^rrc^:- s:^.-«ii ;t ~ie 3c: t&xt Cckos is the only 

':: ^.:;:n-.^ v ;:-.=& znf T.<r::c:e -t::p e ag bit once and tbea inde- 
-•>t*R.<:fVi:v 5. ^ : - , C-'iuraeila. voix. wax to Seneca, has f- 

a^.■!« tT?;^v a .ms j>ff-'.ii. xb zw TTt~t-a~ T»- jn only 10 oat of 
vxi Aiiuiv-ss. ^-rsis iaii,-ii.-ws i rwM^ ocxK with the sal^oiK- 
.^•|^ i ,c iir^ jkc; !nn"7.-n-t-tr-r 3, ;vj\ TadtDS has the 
^^.'---.fv'-.^^ :v ^n3« f:tt=it: buc in him is most nuikcd the 

-^r:^.* ^-■^a.-is. — It ii»e maze of d^en era lii^ 
e s.^ jKiriris it s ---^-^V to trace the varioas 
:\::wvrjv.Ti -^--Jx CUT sii"rt«ct. One ibing, howevw, 
Mr--' , s. iiiiC rue sttir-^aKr** with j. is sdD by &r 
'-■uroi; .^-lEfCmctfcc koL that the indicative is used 
n^ii.-icn; nrsn-js. Of the oearljr nine handred 
» --.imt-ijii. c^iniircg UigeiT the important ground 
, ifirvtmrr per c«Ei sbov the sobjuoctive and less 

?!-i;i,-4. ic Ej,-v-!i=i.-ois A. Concl-j C^si, 187a. 

^d by Google 


than thirteen per cent, the indicative. The Scriptores Historiae 
At^usue never use the latter construction. 

It is evident, therefore, that the usage of the Latin is over- 
whelmingly in favor of the subjunctive in connection with quam- 
vU, even when allowance is made for the comparatively few cases 
where the mood is due to some other cause like indirect discourse 
or attraction. The present is used in considerably more than 
one-half of all these subjunctive instances, a predominance which 
may be explained on the ground of the influence of the present 
tense in the second half of the compound. (See Kiihner, Lat, 
Gram. II, p, 958,)' 

Draeger is wrong in saying (HisL Syntax, §566, 1} that the 
sul^unctive in clauses with q. denotes, as a rule, a subjective 
supposition, and that not until the Silver Age did it begin to 
denote a fact as such. The fact b that as a rule the subjunctive in 
these cases simply denotes that the degree of the statement is lefl 
to the judgment, while in the indicative the degree is treated as a 
part of the &ct itself.' In this way the subjunctive may denote 
&ct as well as the indicative, and we so find it from the very first. 
Cf. Varro, r. r. i, 2, 23, quae lamen q. sint structuosae, nihilo 
magis sunt agriculturae partes. So Cicero frequently uses a 
parenthetical clause, iU est, sicui est, etc., to emphasize the bxt, 
e. g. Ep. ad Alt 12, 38, 4; pro Rose. Am. 8, 22; Tusc Disp. i, 
28, 70, (so without quamvis Brut 19, 76); Ep. ad Fam. 9, 3, 2, 
q. enim sint haec misera quae sunt miserrima, 'for let this be as 
bad as you please, and (whether you please or not) it is very bad.' 
CI also Sen. Apoc. 13, itaque q. podagricus esset . . . pervenit ad 
januam Ditis; N. Q. 6, 4, 3, ut q. . ■ . volumen juvenis ediderim, 
tamen tentare me voluerim. 

wiLu*«iCoii«ii. H. D. Wild. 

'Od the sabject of tenMt with ;., lee Keppel, BlUtei f. d, Bayii*ch« Grm- 
nuulichalwuen. p. lit (1883). 
*Cf. Reitig-Haue, g§a62, 305. 

.y Google 

As TO AasajcTTSunotL 

Vv asnv jn .\^ucnc>3a and Adaptatkn' wfaidi appeared 
»>uM Bv.-nt3£ 1^ n =w ?*ccs ^' i^B Jooraal' bad tbe honor of 
iK-aS ir'-«wwi ar ?^,-«Mur V, He>f7 in tbe Revtte CritiqiK.' 
St; i*>« o" vxx xaae sriccse mbasm in re^vd to deOik, 
■uM s<.ta« j:im. wk£ awncue. aid «as evdyvben kindly lo Kmc 
'~*t: itJkjv * .^s-.-i^sfat Jt A j:^MEaI aacasE. hamvm, of my cootoi- 
:>\.t» .t>M :iM \.'~'^in .iin$aa{« 3»Bt &ave beca a simple langmge 
i .1^ V. >4u» ««t; « TT-imc-iv a e c cue. -rwrawing tbe c(Mn[dezit7 
Jt V ^vuv;^:u ■^■.inu'Ni^ s>'< w-cx Ea^^L He also insisted that 
^. ^.v-x!v>cvuic j!o.f-is stuac icnoB Ba d et Doostrated because 

Now. ( '. «i:>i; 3t j i- aM Bg a ^cue cc Tofa and noun inflexions 
*h >>\:«tt >« M^C'U^iiaccit. res sicae kmsi p e rib f o e remain 
<.^uvv-u u ti.TMi^ p-tirv ^-lor «-i2 ^lac SB^ pandoras as Brag- 
tMt»i. -<«>> .n '*'.-w!5«i.T Ijau r^ iiiiiiw 1"" wocjd (Ax. Tbe point 
4« »•> »,.t>v> «4fr ivt » <utKCCi£ «3ue I T-Hj call die &cts ti 
i,>*u :.'^4if4.-\.-» as ■K«ts<n.iM a ^^ latf iev hatrams, but tbe 
u«\ti*>TUtt'>.-xt .s it<; »::ss. I:t iiferDif; atr ta&ies of paiadigms, 
v.-«>,-s>- . '^x^.'. >vix«« :i.^ OR 3ciiuc:«« Airas, or tbe Aryan 
w.'* 's«>- >v 'V >t<;wv ir^-uT A :w .iripiiaL =*&£. possened oo cod- 

<><? c^sunnc^ luc IE :te cne of Ail' and an 
.•v*;vw~. r^ fat ts KT paper was to 
:•■- 1. >ut» ituii:sKic paacm iatbeirDoam 

■ jMirc-"?*. i» :w utsss case if we were to 

K--i'^ws s^i^i.T«"Ci. Staniag &oft the 

..(•ji'!^ A ittt tucariv and inpeiadve, I 

1-. i^ -li-'i uni ttiuir-mfieucBi by assuning 

.y Google 

NOTE. 353 

that in a paratactic stage of syatax two action-oouns could by the 
addition or pronominal determinants be made to play the func- 
tions of noun and verb in a great variety of relations. 

After developing for mjrself the conception of person in the 
nouD, I found what seemed to me traces of this in Hebrew, in 
which language the variation of the verb for gender is also well 

With this by way of preiace, I venture to lay before readers of 
the Journal some paradigms of the Nama language gathered from 
an essay entitled 'De 1' Article,' by de la Grasserie.' 

SuistaiUif Maseulin, 
i" persomie. 
Sii^. oK'/ii 'homme-moi'; accusatif: au-U. 

Du. au-khum 'bomme-nous-deux'; " au-kkum-a. 
Plur, aii-^« 'hommes-DOUs'; " au-gye. 

2* personne. 
Sing. aK-l!f 'homme-toi.' 
Du. a«-iA# 'hommes-vous.' 
Plur. att-^« 'faomroes-vous.' 

3' personne. 
Sing, ou-^ 'homme-lui'; accus. ou-^a. 

Du. aM-^^ 'hommes-eux-deux.' 
Plur. au-/» 'hommes-eux'; acois. au-git-gu. 

I might add here paradigms of feminine, and of common nouns, 
but this is sufficient to show that great complexity is compatible 
with great simplicity. If all the above suffixes are of plain pro- 
nominal origin, as de la Grasserie claims, absolute simplicity 
reigns until the consciousness of the pronominal origin is lost. 
Here we have thirteen separate forms to indicate the three per- 
sons, three numbers and two cases of a masculine noun, a feminine 
noun furnishes fifteen more, while the common noun furnishes 
still others. Now if this language be conceived to give up the 
characterization of 'person' for its noun and extend its case 
relations, it would have a number of disused person-forms to con- 
.vert into case-forms. 

' M^moiTM de la Soci^t^ de LmgnUlique, IX 308 iq. 

.y Google 


What I ctaimed in my essay was the conjugation of the dooh 
and the declension of the verb. These conclusions aie also 
reached by de la Grasserie, from whom I quote as follows.'' 

" Nous avons peine \ sortir des id^es ^troites qui nous ont k\k 
inculqu4es par les grammaires empiriqucs de nos Ungues das- • 
siqucs iDdo-eun^>6enDcs. Ce ph£noro£ne, au fond si simple, maij 
si nouveau pour nous, de la conjugaison des substantia nous a 
4ii i<v£l£ par des Ungues dCHgn^es sons la forme possesave, ti 
sous U fonne pr6dicuive on ne le trouve nettement que dans le 
Nama. De mfane, I'atticlc ne ooos semble pas devoir sortir do 
substantiL Cependant. qoand on a bien cottstat£ son origiiK 
proDomiiule. on n'a pas de peine i d^coovrir qu'il accompagM 
aussi \t T«rbe prMioDTemait. que c'est m&ne U un fait presque 
uoiversiri : c'est hii qui le coojugue. Presque partout, le pronom 
personnel des trois pasmnes se pr£fixe oo se suffixe au veibe 
d'uoe RUia'^re p^^ooasi^Dc. [misque le sabstantif snjet est ezprimf 
fM Ji:"*urs: B"e5» ce pas hjen U le canctferc de ['article? Dam 
AAvw. Uwtv Mp«v <e5 tFob proDocns suffixes, celui de U 3' p«- 
».>«■.«« d''.:ae e: jiudfc pias apparoue, stmt de v^ritables articles." 

Thj* ;! * i: be 9eett that a wide sonrey <A savage tongues has 
Wvi Je U lirassene to. ibe same ndoctioas I had previously made, 
"as^ei-.-.-S :^-tts lie pf.n;t:ite Aiyaa bases fumisbed as by the eom- 
{vuijK'e i.1~ :>» ocnted k^a^es. I daim that, when liviif 
i*-V-"*f* ^^^Tis^si =s »-i pecscst-cncicfs for Dooos as well as for 
\r«?«, jl£ A;^-JLS la te — . i ei..a : a -mi nms a stroc^ chance of 
^ .-^ >wc;joa' 3 vf-^s w^ ite i$i sg. -an, and all the stroogei 
s-->.tjv« » Se« Ar»*3: iii«r.*;sc sc«as have an Instruneotal in -ff to 
XM.^.''^ ;>? :^ ^^ ■-/■. Nt c^bt jiiowed bow many soch axnt- 
s^v.^-vfi,->iw e\ scrvi S. ; awii. net- aad BC«a enlii^;s, and when a 
»A<-i,C^ ^■'^.oJiC^ fjw:^ a ibS i^ p&enoDeiMn of peison-endiogs 
*,;th--K-x£ V * tvxiJi nx st^^:«iCi.~t£ &M sodi catnsptmdenees in 
\ 1 x.t s^K-^W, Cftt ^ .-C ,"c-s a; 'f "leci aad bood emdlDgs can m 
\siiivT; >* Ofci.-v'- i'-ij-v-'^''^ X,\, wluflibeprefail:!^ grammat- 
vt, >i,'S.-si Kes »•^,1nt s ?.■ «ct^.si £e ccpiric Aryan giaminar, 
fcft.- ,KvK* .J.s *•f:,^.■^^ fdie>3s ^i^M HpOD the sarrivinj; 
V M.t ifc.-^-.Li^iv*, sK-wiHf c? rue caiaes «" ifaeir gramniatial 
>i.'-.«.^^.f ,->»;>•; K... ■rnj.ii* :w T^i;: r.- searci fcr the cause of 
.K' i i.i> ii.<vH. S.--1V— 11^ ,-c ;^t Ajtee lancn^e itselt This 

I nscirics^ a oomparison 


.y Google 

NOTE. 355 

savage and other languages, but will certainly have its subjective 
side also — and this is glottogonic. 

The Hottentots who speak the Nama language are a savage 
people, but so were the Aryans, we must admit The summary 
description of the Hottentots in the Encyclopedia Britannica 
sets forth a suge of civilization substantially like what we find 
described in the synopsis of Schrader's Sprachvergleichung und 
Urgeschichte, furnished us by the Introduction to Clark's Manual 
of Unguistics. The conjugation of the Hottentot noun for which 
de la Grasserie has furnished documentary evidence constitutes a 
sort of warrant for the conjugation of the Aryan noun as suggested 
in my essay on 'Agglutination and Adaptation.' 

W«Hi»™» »»n Lh lT«v.arrT, EdWIN W. FAY. 

LumnnoH, Va., Oel. ». 

, Google 


GtKtensMM: Venoch amtx LAn von dcr rcligiOieo B«griffibildiiiig. Van 
Hiuujm Dsmtx. Booa, Fricdiicfa Colwn. 1896. 

Tbe ABdrisBi vcre the fint of the i^nden of whom Themiiti^a 
deauaded mi»ej, ai ReradotM leU* u (B, iii). Thrilty people were (be 
Andrum thca. u ihej are now, and they did not yield (o the denumd; ud 
wbea TbcmutaUes nid that the Alheniuu brooght with them two ^reil 
goit Hufu Tt Mol 'Arofmi^, tbe Aodriani repUed that they alio bad two [odi 
Dnrif rt mi ' A/an"*'^. £od> that nercr left tbe itland and ever hannted the 
place. The Athenian gods were rich and the Andrian gods were nnprofiutilc. 
but RetoaTceleanen wm and alwayi wonld be too itrong for Remute. 
Theie deitiei are what we call penooificatiafit, and we attach Utile import. 
ance to nch traoiparent figure* of tpeech, but jt it preciKly theie tnnipinnt 
deitie* to which Piofeuor Diener"! book 'GOttcmameo' is destined to briii{ 
more abaodant honor. In a well-known chapter of hi* Roman HiitsTT 
Momnuen calls attention to the (act that the Romans paid the Teij hithot 
boDon to some of those very deities that are so cold and formal to nt. 'Id 
solchen ioueriich abgeiogen Begriffen tod der einHltigstcD, halb ehnrttdifts, 
halb lleherlichen Schlichtheit ging die rOmischc Theologie weseotlJch inf.' 
but while he says that abstraction and peisonification are the essence of Greek 
theology also, he cites no exaniples for the Greek side. Compare Fans. 1. IT. 
1 and the commectators on Find. Pyth. S, I. Poets being themselTei dinne. 
had the right to b^et gods, bnl it is necessaiy to distinguish between these 
extemporised gods and the god* that were of ancient lineage. So the IlcdU 
and the 'Avofml^ of the Athenians were more or less real deities. The Ilti>tt 
and the 'Aft^x™^ °f the Andriaai were mere Ggments, and yet Ilrvfa E^aici 
in Aristophanes, figures in Plato, and in a few more ceotnries might bin 
been as truly a deity as ntM. Now it is with these transparent godi that 
Professor Usencr's fascinating Tolame has chiefly to do. The gods wboK 
names hold no secret are sabordinaled to those whose names are reiled. sad 
these originstly independent deities become mere snrnames to the great gods 
of Olympot. This is the general drift of the book in which Professor Uieset 
has deposited the resalts of the stndy of many years. He hat brooght to ibt 
monnmental work on Greek mythology, of which this volume coven ooly * 
section, wide and profound learning, a wonderful power of combination sad 
a charming style. Those who have read the various monograph* in whicb be 
has followed tbe traces of pagan tradition on the sands of the Bollandiiti «itt 
be prepared to welcome this ampler volume ; and while the writer of <bi( 
notice is not one of the specialists to whom, according to the sdvertisemcDt 
of the Journal, such a work ought to be referred, still the subject recslli 
earlier studies of his own, and in default of a critical review tbe reader miy 

^d by Google 


be not diiiDclincd to accept ai a temporary mbrtitntc a rapid ontline of the 

The introdnctoiy chapter ii beaded 'Wort Dad BegriC A word ii not a 
coDTentioDtd mark, a mere token of the concept (v^), nor U it an sdeqnate 
name for the thing itself and its esieoce (^"ti). It li a precipitate of imprei- 
•ioni from without, a compendiam or, if jroa chooie, a fragment of a descrip- 
tion. It il the predicate of an undefiDed tabject tliat cannot yet be named, 
that can only be pointed at with the Angei. All common noant mnit liare 
been originallj' adjectival in their natare, either real adjectivei of quality and 
the like or nrmina agtnlit. Now, are the namei of tlie godi to be measared 
by the ume itandard? Tnie, the progreis of linguistic tempts tile itndent to 
the analysis of these Btia Avi/mra, bat there have been so many mistakes, so 
many aberrations, that even now we may well heed the sober words of Hero- 
dian : <rti iu iwi tuv laiplav trv/uAirj'iaf ^ofipiiiav. We are then to take the 
names of the gods as so many data and simply follow the history of the 
changes to which they have been subjected. In this way we may hope, while 
studying the phenomena of modification and renewal, to learn something of 
the forces which were at work in the beginning. 

Professor Usener's first chapter deals with the way in which the forms of 
Greek names increase and multiply. The black-hearted goatherd in the 
Odyssey is now Ucldi4ia[, now XtiavMi^, and when one comes to patronymics 
the Greek is apt to open bis mouth wide, as commenlstort on Rnd. Ol. 6, i; 
have noticed, TiUdlduf becomes laXaio^iidat. But these growths from a 
common stock have a tendency to differentiation, a* nimrro! and lUofn-w, and 
Kpiwof, KpotiuK, KpoM^, twtpluv and TrepimidiK set up a genealogical 
relation that is nothing bnt a false inference from the form. 

The next chapter has to do with the creation of female divinities. It is not 
good for a god, any more than it is for a man, to be alone. But in the Rigveda 
there are few female divinities, and the Vedic gods dispense with the process 
of birth. There are female figures enough, but these are only goddesses by 
coartesy,pale creatures, mere lunar rainbows to the gods, and Professor Usener 
sets up the thesis that, with the exception of two or three old goddesses whose 
•ex was determined by the conception of their character, the Indo-Germanic 
peoples begat none but male deities, and that the female deities were mere 
inflexions of the masculine fonns, and grew out of them as Eve was taken ont 
of the side of Adam. The Romans in the inJigitamtnia turned out gods, as 
every one knows, male and female, with tiresome frequency. Every Jack had 
hi* Jill, every Faonn* had bis Fauna, and the Greek mytholt^y, especially the 
heroic saga, it fall of snch couples as TXamtot and TTjsbiai, 'Iim-JAirrof and 
'IrmJlrt^. Sometimes one is left a widower, sometimes one is left a widow, 
Zci>('s spoQse Aib is divorced from him. In epic poetiy 'E«iro{ had to live 
without his 'Endnr, and in later times 'Knirrft good old god survived not in 
the mouth of the people, bnt merely in the realms of literatnre. 

We have had thus far the variation of the word. We now take a step 
farther and cone to the variation of the concept, a process which blends 
indistinguishably with the variation of the word. So. for instance, in a word 
like aXUaoTOf, like vcdurroc the Attics felt not so much a compound as a sufliial 
variation of U^ and 1^. There is a class of compounds thrown off in swarms 

.y Google 

A:fEs:cA.v JOURNAL, op paiLamoT. 

B if Aotanriite. and Tni— pc Sjpim ia s ■T'' ^ 
at iKiv diE ' JM ii^hf iT of ff»^Tfi», \jaL ft T ill "'" 

■iBea (if die jOil> tbe AgTUniatiaB of ^ick b 
r dm ^snlianiT of Ae Rian 
mlii^ofl. -a whicli lefeieuee ii^ beB> ibhIe rfiuilj. Tbe object of poTti 
ileinan'Is 'hat none fif die jiuu diHil be oautteii vteae help is tried U 
tiring ^ofiit IT »cn ?tt1. jus s wfioaibirvs inoe to iaaofce tH taas \*tt\\\\\\i 
'a 'lOme the '•mra rtf 'Jie emsp whiclt die devil ia rynxf iit Cbeir leg*. TlcK 
n — CT were •!! rc^nerEcl m tlie RiHiBi pr a yr - bonka. in. the ia^^mi^ 
U't hnUE of These jt ortt. u Vum call* dteH, lune ciB>e dowa to a. Pn- 
Revmt L'tener eilU :tiem ■ SaadafimxT.' Let ucxll chem *- SpecimlBt Godl.' 
TH^ have each > definite faaetion and e*«iT sphere of life a »jp poi ott. 
er-rtj tectioo auigned ta i ^ecml di-nnity. Twelve fods. fcc iaituce, 
b«iij«s T>;1'.U9 and Ceres, aie in-*aked &it the lacnas <«&, bcpmiiaf villi 
Ihe xrvl vbo bueaka the EUlow field. Venactor. and wiadinc f with Utaet, 
C/mteet/x, OmiJiTor, Praaitor — all naasponst t iiimJ> Sccdi aie lattisled 
to ^la. and Frtner^iaa kas =aie of tile tender tkooc tkat cieeiis ap oat of Ac 
eirth, Finn f rniHes ovet ibe fiowcts, FOMooa. a {a4den of bait, and Zpan 
ha« charge of bone* and Balevand instaaces Bight beBslliplied iadefiaitelj. 
!*aw, theie arc pat, u Gn*iaaan woald ha*a il. a weak aft etgro w t h of i 
pnpnlaT ttlipon that bu bcca checked la itx denlofiaaeat. Thcj ihow.u 
Mnrnmten hi« Men, Ihe deep leligioos leaie ol the Italic peoplei, and the 
[i«r<i(tenG7 with which the Italic* held to iheae forma, which we are apt to 
call hiooilie** abiltactioni, atand* in ittiking contnat to the lapid diuppeu- 
anrv cf Italic nifihf before the face of Greek tiaditknii. Bat this [diencB- 
rnnn don not trand alone, and we pass from the heathen of Italj to the 
heiith«n of Northern Earope, from the Roman gods to the god* of Lithiaois. 
that pari of Europe in which healbendon held longest <^n sway. Theloc 
Dm of Lithuanian deities show* a bolt of •iKni6caol name* from A to Z, fraa 
Aiiicnntum.'theboisardess'or goddess of the bee. to Zeln*,' the grten grower,' 
whn In Ihe goH of the grass. We ate back again in the realm of the iaA/i'Wiwrtt 
A (Imllnr partition of the realm of good and evil is familiar to the sludealof 
lincliiliiH]'. Kverjr one knowi that each trade has it* patron niat, that St. 
Ijtiliprl !■ tlie patron of the hunter and that the shoemaker is jocnlarlr called 
i> Kiilutil of St. Citapin. St. Anthony care* for the swine, SI. Barbai* arnti 
ilvHlh In lialtit, anil SI, Joieph Is invoked b; those who aie in quest of partnen 
liir lire, n< in that chnrming little story la JVeta/atHt dl CeUUt. These hsTC 
futeiprl iiiln llie Inheillance of Ihe ancient ipecialisl*. Only the namessre 
lull ail trn 111 pa rent and the personality is more vivid. 

.y Google 


The next chapter dub with the Greek specialiil gods. In ipite of the 
plnstic chkraetetof Greek religion, in tpUe of the domination of fignrei that 
refiue to be analysed, there ii no lack of tianipareot deitiet, and theie 
specialist godt and goddeuet, with their practice limited to one sphere, 
remind one of the imaotpyoi of the Homeric time. To begin with the 
beginning, to be[rin with birth, there ii KeXhylvtia, there is TtvervUit. 
KoupoTpd^, ■ surname of a nnmber of deities, seems originally to have had 
an office of her own. ' Long before the Madonna with the Christ-child could 
be represented, the ancient Sgure of the Kovporpd^ appear* on the mural 
paintingi of the Catacombs.' Avidia U transpareot and so is Avf^, one of 
the old Attic Charite*. The 'Opai are the season*, and in Attica there are 
two. eoAU and Kapir6. OaiM in the form OdAiui contrirei a double debt to 
pay and serves now as a Muse, now u a Grace. 'Bpo^ is a goddeis of the 
dew. Boinw is a neatherd, and hii mother, Zivibnni, harnesses horses. A'X^ 
i* > midwife and Bpiiit is a goddess that is caught napping. The divine 
physiciaii is Aiklepios, but before Asklepios established himself as master of 
le«chcraft far ixtttttfUt there was an 'larpit, and, according to Professor 
UacBer, Paian ntu^uf is older than Apollo. He 'a pavjavan 'the cleanser,' 
who makes everything pwtan fiuAuH, and Paian continues to be honored side 
by side with Asklepioi. 'looof is another bealer, and so is Xiipuv, who it a 
chinrgeon. 'liaur, the pnpil of Xiipuv, is a bealer too, and H^eia 4 tdAi'^- 
tiiaa>t, tbc running mate of 'IiJauv, belongs to the same sphere, "yyieia is a 
notoriotu instance, and examples of Greek transparencies in the field of 
medtcioe might be malitplied. 

Every one knows the great part that tight plays in religion. It plays a 
great part in ours ; it played a great part in the Greek system, and much space 
is given to it by Professor Usener. Afiio; is the light god, and has a far less 
famons brother, Hvicrcuf, the night god. This Afjco- enters into various com- 
trinalions and figures largely in the names of places, among which Professor 
Usener counts Aixvempa, which he render? • lichlea warte.' Unluckily, 
popular ethology coupled the two Mrimi, and Aind^, ' the path of tight,' the 
great year, wa« interpreted as the ' wotf-path,' so that we have mist instead of 

Nov, these independent gods, these specialists — such is Professor Usener's 
contention g r a dually became luboidioate to the personal gods, to the gods 
that had assumed a plastic form. If he will pardon the expression, they were 
mediatiied. Aimof or \liaiot became a mere surname of Apollo. Artemis 
absorbed KaiXiani. Of course, (here are many eponyms that belong properly 
to this god and that. '0?.b/iiTioc was fused with Ztbc as liafla with 'XifpodiTH, 
bat. on the other hand, we are not to suppose that ACucof came from 'AirSUijv 
Aimtiot or from Zcvc AiwoJof. Professor Usener has himself shown, in his 
cbanning book on St. Pelagia, how the snmames of Aphrodite-Venns have 
hypostatized themselves in sacied legend, bnt here we are 00 different ground. 

The main divinity of a place was naturally called dwif or inaeea, itajr6Tm, 
dfarnHva (irA-wo), later iSipioc, Kvpia. Baal means simply 'lord.' Mama, the 
god of Gata, survive! in the Christian formula Maranaiba. So in Latin we 
have Dominus and Era. In fact, one of the saint* in the calendar bears the 
name Domna. Atoiratva is largely identified with Periephone, but she is 

.y Google 

::-,*_- ^—-jiij-j^ IT psz^cLOcr. 

»-» ^;3 Ml ;^^r'-»i« far Ike tgnreid 

T^=x. vl like :^ LtfiB Mesra. AwTV 
-=.1- KC M.7 :te oU nBci bat ibe ^ 
1 {Ddt tbiorb Ik 

^c:. T>^na; is tbe prasenf 
« af the deputed *Dd nit 
; aad tbe rank of 
s af JakB QuMT Aduu ii 
t wH be «ee* that PrarcsiM 
> 3ceak«l Bovadap, that the 
at jf a»cestof-worahip. TKi 
s to wbkb hnmanilj B 
a tbe final soom af 
■s^ -jSES ^rms d« qtirit of man himieU, 
le ssKX 3ix iaam tfcc «ost important ftl< 
:s^ua Jt a livmc nnL AneeHoc-wonhip 
;w s«^ « henxl;^ we see in thii F** 
ac n-^iul Karc <d tUagt, bat the tAc 
Q^: Bakes [hvaria* the son of Scode- 
a* a sere Jei&ed boo. bcIoDS* to i «iT 
I >e srvnd in tCEaid to Alklepios ud 
Ji loJ H«lem. These are late proceMO- 
;^«ipeciLiaBodiBtoaben>. In Olynipii 
ie« xsvei. M propitiate the daimoD t«<^' 

.y Google 


fm-Toc. Id Olrmpia they Ihonght of Poieidon, on [he Isthmat of GUukos, 
who had been lorn in piece* b; hit own hoTfci. Once upon ■ time thii 
TKraxippos wai ft god or godling with his choice and select circle of aubjecta. 
Id the conne of the ages he became heie an eponjm, there ■ hero. But we 
cannot follow Professor Usenei into all the rich detail of this chapter. 
Hcsiod, he reminds ns. pat the namber of immortal beings that at Zeui' 
biddins watch orer mortal men (O. et D. ajs) at thrice tea thoiuand. There 
are a good manjr left, but the transparent Gguret of the specialists had to be 
content, as we have seen, to lire on as eponymi of other gods or in the lower 
estate of ^pucc and daitiovtt, while the opaque names, such as Kekrops and 
Acbilleo*, and those which were not sufficiently specialized, such as Euphemoi, 
irere woTen into the texture of heroic legend. 

It has been shown that the principle of the Roman indigitameiita is not 
isolated, that it was at work not only in Lithuania, but also in Hellas. These 
three alone would suffice to give it a Gtm foothold, and from this vantage- 
gronnd Profeuor Usener proceeds to survey the field and ask how far these 
facts modify our historical view of polytheism. 

F. G. Welcker reached as the conclusion of his long researches, that the 
notion of Zeus the Sky as IMt godhead was the root out of which all the special 
forms of divinity sprang. Schelting in his old age arrived at the view that a 
relative monotheism stood at the threshold of all religion, a relative mono- 
theism sharply to be distinguished from an absolute or pure monotheism, 
which is the last result of religions and philosophic development. The vague 
onity of the One God took different forms at difTerent times, and the diiferent 
aspects led in the process of the ages to the development of distinct gods. 
We revert to the old story of the Tower of Babel and the scattering abroad 
of tbe peoples. Now, the subject can be attacked from different sides. The 
names of the months, which are derived, as a rale, from the main festival of 
each month or from the god celebrated at the festival, yield interesting and 
important results. Another side is presented by old sacral traditions, by the 
traces of human sacrifices, of fetich worship, which lead to conclusions as to 
the special antiquity of such and such gods. Nor would it be unremunerative 
to stndj the religion of those peoples to the North and East of Hellas, who, 
though akin to the Greeks, were r^arded as barbarians simply because they 
had been left behind in the march of culture. All these fields of observation 
yield the same result The same four or five gods come out as the earliest 
stock. The next step is to regard the heroes as hypostases of tbe attributes 
of well-known gods. A stride, and these few god*, these four or five, are the 
crttanations of the one god Zeus, all with the exception of tbe one goddess 
that matches the one god. 

Now, OS Professor Usenet well says, a thought must be thought out, must be 
pushed to its consequences, before we can be convinced whether it is tenable 
or not -. and after pursuing this line of thought for some time, be felt his feec 
slipping from under him. The hypostases lacked suying power. Finally, 
the study of the Lithuanian gods relieved him of the painful feeling. He 
had to tnm back, he had to learn the lesson backward, and has come to the 
conclusion which is embodied in this work. Only finite phenomena, finite 
relations, can call forth the feeling of the infinite— not Ik* infinite, as we 

^d By Google 


> if ffuf. «I vncii BMC c fax MJei^Mflm niM. We wbo tre 
K {■£ i^ naccnc rf ladi drrise fona oilf 
> if ficc*. tea «c >se aot ta coalbuid tbc 
E rt-'r^— J rf li^MJ-j «ilk on owa. We mul 
1 be ^U to 
=- vt r^foa^ai gois briap poIrtheiiK 
T» k wBt, »tmt of (be piaaiacit 
BK^a hH ■! Miwi i" ia tke st^e at wfakb oatf 
be: t^iee wen eehos, «ck u the KaUuiiMci, 
t -^ Ec^ bcranf :!* Prmeec who* Sinbo (3. 164) oUl 
^ r^^ **™ ""flf - dv! BL. kW BO prapcr namei. Tbnt 
rVu t£ 1^ ^Bc icda ■■■liii il fay TbeofdiraitM (tp. 
P«<7^Tt. iK i*ii--.'»citii K. Si. I tin eodi bcked proper ■■iri ai well h 
diow sf tke K^it~m^ Sa :9a a: ■ la^cr dxr iW duitliu* wefC called Jfco. 
aoc i&f :te;ha£ > taec^ne i&ey vil&bdd fraa the penonal godt rf 
the keat2C9 tW \zOxse tia: «as Aej ^^ Hckc the 07 n^ TDi<r Mutt. 
Asj K9V «e are able ts sxjentui] vhat Berodous (*. ;>} tells u of lie 
Fclajp. '^M ihey !mc£^: aH MasKr at cAninfx to the c<*^ ^* ''^ "" 
propet a»fi. bo nrxxBex. Tot uf of them.' Fraa theie factx Prafensr 
Uicaer coset to the cocluioa that at the time of the paitiDg of the wsft of 
oar (aailr o( people* tu ia uj Eaa ud West, the coociete peraonal godt bid 
»a( jet citab:ul:ed -JieKielres, iha! ihe ^lecialnt god* (till held imf. 

From tfaeae ^leculic: p>di. hcnma.we mast deacead to a Hill lower gnde, 
■ of s Eod thai, la to qteak, peiiihea with the using, ■ god 
entair inpalie, a momeittaiy feelia;. 
Such Bomrntuy godt we God is the Lithaaaiaii cjitcik. Such a god ii the 
ooe that ii formed bf the last harvest iheaf before which, ai in the Biblio] 
(unalire, the other iheavei make abeiiancc It was « aiaiiner of fetich of 
what we have a ttace in tbe old harvest soog. the old aiXo^ IaAot song. lalot 
was a deity, Eireiione was a deitj. Tbe Hacedooiaoi worshipped Kennnos 
'the tbandeTbolt' as an independent god, and all wOl remember the rerertace 
paid to meteoric stones. The Mooa is the month and Helios is the day. Ib 
tbe canons passage ^apo^ tin iaiiiava diieu (6 166), an on-Homeric passage 
according to commentators, new and old, the schoolboy rendering ' I wiQ giw 
yoD the dence Erst,' though stirtliogly modem, is not so far from Profencr 
Usener*! contention, daifiova, then, is really aaiit (toi/m-o. What coold be 
more shifty than tbe iai/iuv or the cxpresiioo that occntt to often, i nc" 
i'lifujv'the ipriie that attends nsnow'7 From this pointof new anything cu 
become a god, as wu said >l the beginning of this reriew. 'Amiilrui does not 
stand on a different plane from the Andrian 'kfaixari^ whose acqnaintsnce *e 
made a while ago. Bnt the Greek iaiiiaa is faint and vague in 

■Juilln Martyr r«ur« nputcdir 10 Ihe naultuiwii of Ged. ApoL i, n 

, Google 

Reviews AffD BOOK NOTICES. 363 

irith the Italic grmui. Thii is the word which language Qse» a« a general 
tenii to designate an infinite numbei of individual notions. Every man, 
e*er]r tocietj, every body of troopi, e*eiy town has a genitu. And what 
giHtta ii to a man. lune is to a woman. Nay, in her relation to men, e*eiT 
woman hai a Venus. Lugilt Vaitrti \% an Italic conception. The Greek 
doea not use 'AfpoSlrm thus. In the imperial times the power of begetting 
gods Tot the nonce did not forsake tbe old Roman religion. Everything that 
belonged to an emperor was deified — bis outgoing, Profeclus August), and his 
incoming, Reditas Anguiti. All the qualities of the emperor, his Justice, 
his Severity, all hia moodi, hii Hilarity, his Gtadneia, all his blessings, his 
Happiness, his Hope, stand out as individuals. These also are extemporized 
gods that respond to the feelings of the mass of the people.' 

At last we come to the gods that are gods, to the personal gods, llie opaqne 
gods, if we choose to call them so, in contrast to the more shadowy gods that 
have followed thus far every itep of human life, in contrast to those gods of 
whom the words of Euripides hold good : 

oliii Ivrn owMv jt-^jIi oi^pdiroii Btoi'. 
It is bard for us to renew in onnelves the state of mind of those antique sonli 
who called these gods into being and then believed on them, according to the 
saying (Tacit. Ann. 5. 10): fingtbant HmiU (redtbantqvi. But facts care very 
little whether we understand them or not. This simultaneous fancy and faith 
is the key to the riddle of the momentary gods, the ' Augenblicksgmter.' The 
specialist gods belong to a more advanced period of abstraction, to a stage 
which was over when the poems of Homer originated. In the clear light of 
the sky which they inhabit the Olympians stand forth in sharp outlines, in 
bodily presence, things to be seen and handled. Even shadowy notions such 
ai Oneiros, the dream-god, and At^ partake of this substantial character. It 
IS a great advance. But the advance was not dne to Homer or, as Herodotos 
says in a well-known passage (a, 4), to Hesiod and Homer ; mrroi iuii ol irot^ 
oovrif Staror'api 'EU^i. Nor was it a special merit of the Greeks. Personal 
gods had to exist before they could be developed, and that they existed the 
history of kindred peoples shows: the Hindus with their Vedic India, the 
Germans with their Wuotan, the Lithuanians with their Perkons. How did 
this change come about ? 

The special gods or specialist gods could not have been all of the same 
importance. Certain gods were more prominent than others. Let us lake an 
example : Apollo, one of the most richly endowed figures of Olympos. He is 
popularly regarded a* a sun-god — so now and so also in antiquity. But Apollo 
■nd Helios are not the same in Homer. Apollo may be a god of light, but he 
is not Helios. The real significance of the god can only be ascertained by 
the study of his name, which means the ■ off-driver,' the Avemincus of the 
Romans. The meaning of the name was lost. 'AtAaAuu was no longer 
traniparent ; his original function needed the interpretation of such eponyms 
as kXt^Uuuo^ and 'Airorp^nioc. and this opaque god overbore Hi* Transparency 
Aiwof just as 'Apripf and 'Endrir were to overbear ^Xiprq and M//V7. Qmtu 
iftetmm fn magtdJUa. A like fortune has attended Zeus. In Greece incom- 

>S«L. Djrir, ThaCodi Lp Greece, pp. 37-4), on ihldtlfiulloB or lilt Robuid enpeisn. 

.y Google 


preheniible Zem reigned Kiog of ihe Gods. In India th« too compidKnoble 
Djransh-pilar gave way to Indra. 

So in the history of language, out of the maia of special vordi rcflectiag 
the Tarioui impreEsioni produced by this and that aspect of thJDgs, one mid 
•tlsini to the primacy. Steed, nag, stallion, mare, Gl!y, colt, chirgec, pilfity, 
destrier, lioise, all these abide, but the greatest of these is hoise. The cbstea 
word becomes a manner of proper name, becomes colorless. 

After Engine Bamouf had proved with methodical certainty the oripul 
anily of the mythic Ggnres of the Zendavesta nilh Ihe gods of the Rigieda. 
both a* lo the forma and as 10 Ihe original signiNcance of Iheir names, ud 
Adalbert Kuhn had extended Burnouf's method, with marked success, to the 
European peoples, a comparative mythology seemed possible. It was a niy 
natural application of compaTalive philology, and rested on the asiuinptiaa 
that the prehislorjc nolioni of gods and heroes had found their Goal expreuioD 
in language before the parting of Ihe peoples. But. according to ProfesiM 
Usener. Che arbitrariness and the violence with which those who wiooght in 
the new department multiplied the points of comparison, soon lost to thea 
the confidence of those who were engaged in mylholi^ical research, sod 
Andrew Lang's criticism of Max MDller is cited as an illustralinn. Tbc 
coincidences of language really reduce Ihemxelvea to a small number of osei. 
and the few that are left are by no means universal. So ihe Hindu gods hne 
vanished from the majority of the kindred peoples. The notions of ihe e°^ 
ate perpetually recoined \ the old word becomes opaque and it replaced h; 
more transparent formations. In Greece the ditTerent cantons show tlie 
greatest variations in ibeir oldest traditions, and only the advance of csltnie 
and the spread of literature have made the Greek gods the common piopeitr 
of the whole people. If this is true of Greece, so much more strongly does 
it hold of kindred peoples. Like words in this religious sphere can only be 
exceptions. Out of multitudinous wordi tor Ihe same notion one emerges vcA 
becomes, as we have seen, a manner of proper name. This stage once reached, 
the god develops a new life. Sarameyat, ihe son of Sarama, is almoit la 
ifitvjpiiiv KdfjiTvoc in the Rigveda. Hermes, his Greek equivalent, is bunting 
wilb life. The Greek Xdpjrcc remind one of the hariiai, the horses of the 
sun, only by iheir connection with Che light of heaven which shines ont in 
Aglala. In Greece Zcbf di^, Z^i/ Zv>^ are rival forms of the same word. In 
Italy lanus parts company with lovis, luppiter. Faunas was one of the pmsI 
importani gods of Latium. It is ihe same name as Ihe Greek Mwv, the divine 
ferryman who steered the souls of the blessed from the Leukadian rock erer 
the ocean to the land of light where the gods dwell, and Ihe sloiy ho* 
Aphrodite, in Ihe form of an old woman, was taken across by this feirynua 
has come down Ihe ages in different forms. So lason bore Hera. across the 
Anaucos. Heraktes Dionysos across the sea. St. Christopher ihe Chriil'Cliild 
across the torrent. The connection of Ihe Faunus with Aphrodite is chece. id 
be sure, but how different ! He is a Faimiu iimm and a Fataaa imuha. * 
'teaper' and a 'presser.' 

Potylheitm receives color and character by the development, by the growth- 
setting, of Ihe personal gods, by their taking on of form. In the MwDeiic 
poems Apollo is what might be called in familiar parlance a 'settled' god. 

, Google 


The two gods Phoibos ind Apollo have grown together, and it is an under- 
stood thing that Pboibos is the subordinate notion. One says 4wi^ 'AirdAAuv 
as one sayi vt^Ourm't'o Zevf, And so of 'Emtrof, 'Bxatpyoc, 'Eiai067u)( and the 
rest of them. The eods proceeded to annex the territory of the specialist 
gods, Zeus widens hii reign, polytheism tends to monotheism, and the way is 
prepared for Xenophanes, who bleaks resolately with the theogony. It might 
alto be interesting lo trace the high career of Tiixv, who started as a manner 
of sea-nymph in the olden time and came ont a manner of queen in the 
imperial period, a Fortnna Regina.* Then came in foreign gods, then came 
on the period of syncretism. This was also a step in the direction of mono- 
theism, ijerapis united in himself Zeus, Plato, Dionysos and Osiris; Helios 
absorbed Apollo and Dionjsos. and every one Icnowt the part that Mithras 
played in the religious system of the Emperor Julian. The old personal gods 
b^an to fade out. In early times i Sc6c stood for any familiar god, according 
to the occasion — now Zeus, now Apollo, now Poseidon, according as rain or 
oracle or cacthqualce was meant. Then it stood for 'god' in general. Then 
came ri Stun, ri iaiiiivim, Zriif gave way to his atlribale Ktyicrot, luppiter to 
Aetemus Sanctns, and finally we reach the stage at which THiStof appears. 
Only Pantheas would not satisfy the old craving for a personal god. and 
Panthens is rarely used alone, but appears mostly tacked on to lappiler, 
Priapns or Serapis. The monotheistic revelation of Jndea fonnd a world that 
was ready for it, and entered upon the career which Professor Usener has 
traced in several of his earlier writings, a career in which the old seeds of 
popular belief bore fruit upward in the figures of the hagiolc^y. 

We now turn to the reverse of the process, the degradation of the names of 
the gods to names for the children of men. Here the old saying, ptiun nemini 
ftiaeriati, has its application. There were famUi nomina, ' lucky names.' 
There were names that belonged to certain professions. There were 
Asklepiads on the island of Kos and elsewhere, there were Cheironids at 
Demelrias. The Scot irorp^ were held in honor, and names were taken from 
the calendar as in modern times. These names appear now with suffixes, as 
'AO^voio; and 'AiroU^ioc, now in compounds, as ' tiSqvsiipa^, 'MpHito^, AOi/m- 
fiviif, lui^iTof, 'Ep/ioxap^, Aiiniaf, Zr/t^^iof, AioytiTUV, iviyivrK, ' A-ivmiufioi, 
Zi7v<S0t/«C. AukA^, 'EpuoKpan;^, &iaa8hnif, 'Epfiirifiot, Ai^i^. The cult of i^fK 
is shown by the long list of derivalives. and the 'Avaiui give origin to a 
considerable series, under which Professor Usener classes the familiar name 
'AvoKp^uv.* There are also Roman names traceable to like origin. Mamercus 
has long been derived from Mamers and Tiberius from the river-god Tilier. 
and there are others. Even the names of the gods could be transferred bodily 
to men when the worship of the gods themselves had faded out ; and hence 
we encounter examples chiefly in the later years. Slaves bore the names 
Eroa and Hermes, perhaps on the same principle on which the Southerners 
named their negroes in the old slavery times Jupiter and Juno. Here the 
earlier time and the Eater time meet. In the earlier days the 'Bixxoi or Bdajot 
called themselves by the name of the god whom they served and on occasion 
represented. The maidens who were consecrated to the service of Artemis of 
Bmnron were called 'Apm-oi. 

■ Sm AlUfn, ilaOt nr la d^aut (r«;qu* Tychi. Furl!, 1U9. ■ S« A. J. P. Ill 4«j. 

Digitized by Google 


6«l aemrdisg to Prnfexur TTifri ike ^wle woAA of Greek proper unwi 
H fell a^co^ ■») ibe pretaBpttoa tkat aBf luine ii in tome w*.j taken tnn 
the caleodu. ■! ate Christiaa ■>>» is OmtineDUl Europe. onnM be 
coBBdcicd eztravagiBt. la fkct tW ipecnlitt cod* u well u the penooil 
ptds have ir(: iteii incei all o*er tlie oaoaaidoon of Greece. 

Bai bsw is rx vhk the a^Be* Ihal pretest the idea of the dmnity in u 
'abtttact' fora? Sach Bamet as Dcimoi and Phoboi and Eri*. nch nimesat 
ftjdoimtH aad Co ia the Iliad, each aaaes u ChaM and Nyx and Hcntrt 
IB Hesiod. Id tav Bothing of tach a gang of penoniScatiooa mi we God in Ibe 
Acseid, 6. *74 foIL? The; iwarK, u erei? one knows, in late poetiy, utlic 
belief u penoiu] godx dies oal. See Nonnoi for Greek ; see Clandian for 
Latin. Bni there were BBabere of tbeai in the earlier time. The^ woe 
shadowy, ther were bloodless, bat that was doe to the transparency of tltcii 
BaacL Tbey lacked Ae Brstery of the personal gods. Tbe]> were mere 
atMncts. Bat let ne ask here, Wbu are abstracts? Did language have uf 
abstracts to htr^ with ? That Is a qaestioa that most hare thmst itself npoi 
ererr tbooghifal teacher of Greek. Oar grBoman of erery d^ree jofoul; 
make caleeodes for abstract and concrete, and have done to for generatiooi, 
without asking whether the language with which they are dealiDg recagniia 
these categories, ouaa is supposed to be the e<)ninJeDt of ' abstract,' ipaff" 
of 'concrete.' How futile! And at a grammarian I am glad to see ihil 
Professor L'sener is aboat to take the field against these notioos, which bin 
done no little barm in petrening the linguistic feeling of the students of 
Greek. But I find that I hare strayed from the path which I had prescribtd 
for myself in this notice. Of Professor Usener's mytbotogical combinationi 
I have no right to judge ; still less, if possible, of the etymological portioni of 
bit treatise, and I am afraid that the oolline I have given is as pale lad 
bloodless as some of the shadowy figures of which he speaks at the end of tbe 
book. Still, this summary will not hare beeo written in vaiD. it it incite some 
student to the perusal of a work which is marrellous for its wealth of 
learning, raloable for its manifold suggestiTeness, and delightful fat itt 
limpid and sparkling style. 


Plauti Corooediae. Recensuit et emendavit F. Lio. Betolini, vol. I (Ampbi- 
tmo-Mercalor). 1895; vol. II (Miles-Vidulaiia), 1B96. 

Plautinische Forschungen tur Kritik nnd Geschichte der KomOdie von F. 
Lbo. Berlin, 1B95- 

In iSts Ussing, in the preface to the first volume of his complete edition of 
Plautus, after expressing his high appreciation of Ritschl's labors, criticised 
him because "suo saepe indicio plus tribuens quam antique 
dnm et senteniias ad summum nitorem eiigete conatur textui 
ioeleganteni quidem sed nee satis fidum nee non saepius a Plauli sennoneet 
sensu alienum," etc. This attitude of Ussing brought down upon him Ibe 
sharpest criticism of the Ritachelians, so that he was obliged to protest againit 
it in his second volume. Who would have thought ftat the same severe 
critics, after carrying Rilschl's edition to a brilliant termination and prodnei^ 

.y Google 


a text which, sa ctcd they ChetuselTes would now admil, PUulai could never 
have written, ihoald in the smaller edition finiihed two yeais ago have 
pnblUhed ■ t«it equallf impossible becaase of its too slavish adherence to 
the MSS even when ihey were incompreheasibte ? or that the editor of a new 
text should be able boldly to proclaim in bis preface, as Leo does; "aliud est 
apparamni criticnm comparare, aliud scriptoris opus recenserc et emendarc ; 
in Plauto alrumqne facere mortalitaa non concedit nni" ? The edition thus 
inlrodoced it destined to be the prevailing edition of Plautas for many years, 
and will take at once a high place as the work of a very clever as well as 
conservative critic. It rests, to be sure, upon no independent collation of the 
MSS ; so that the editor makes himself accountable for whatever mistakes may 
occur in the Triumvirate apparatus. But. as Tyrrell says of Baiter's collation 
of Ibe Medicean of Cicero, " if every editor who docs not reproduce the text 
of Baiter must have himself collated the MSS. then the work of Baiter has 
been thrown away. . . . why should not a collation once satisfactorily executed 
be regarded as final for the purposes of future editors?" On the other hand, 
it is based upon a very careful study of MSS variations, during the course of 
which Leo has reached certain conclusions, perhaps made some discoveries 
i>f great value. These are set forth in the Plautinische Forschungen, which is 
noquestionably the most important contribution to Plautine literature in recent 
ycaia and deserves the careful attention of every student of early Latin. The 
book comprises six chapten, of which the first, fifth and sixth have a direct 
bearing npon the text. 

Id the first chapter, 'Geschichte der Ueberlieferung der Plautinischen 
KomOdien im Altertum.' Leo ditcastei the formation of the Plautine corpus 
and the interrelation of the Ambrosianus and the Palatine family of MSS. 
Since the careful study of the Ambrosianus inaugurated by Ritschl. the 
tendency has been to accept its readings. Leo hopes to prove not only that 
both A and P sprang from the same MS. which has been long admitted, but 
(hat the text from which they arc drawn has l>«en changed without hesitation 
in A, to a smaller degree and within certain limits in P. Furthermore, the 
text that we get by the agreement of A and P. or, where they disagree, by a 
study of their disagreement, or where P alone is at hand, by clearing it of 
it* medieval corruption, ia the text of the beginning of the second century 
A. D. It has been long known that the text of Plauius does not go back to 
his own times, but was drawn from stage copies, whose variation caused 
trouble even in Varro's time. But it has been supposed Ibat we have substan- 
tially the Fabulac Vartonianae as Varro knew them. Leo. however, claims 
that by the end of the first century Plautus had completely disappeared from 
Rome, but that in the outlying districts oumcrous plays of greii or less purity 
of text were still to be found; that some grammarian, perhaps Valerius 
Frobas, gathered t^ether these stray plays and made a corpus of twenty-one 
plays, selecting that number because Varro had spoken of that number as 
being universally accepted. Our plays arc Fabnlae Varronianae in that sense, 
but in no other. This text is in the main the text of Varro's timr. revised and 
emended according W the metrical canons of the second-century criticism. 
We can only expect, accordingly, by the most diligent study of the MSS. to 
get the text of the second century, not the text of Plautus' own time. Thia 

.y Google 


podtian «e«M* to be is the main coiicct. CertAin modifintioiu will, o( 
cootte, alwajs Iutc 10 be vide u we dUcoret more and more of tbe diSet- 
enccx between the mctikal teduiqac of the Alcbailts and that of PUntu' 
owa time, and the recent tnAj of metre \ij aaay icholan, nay, the itad|r by 
Leo himself in thix book, ihowx that much progrcu ma; (till be made tovudi 
the text on whicb the wcond-eentaij edition was baaed. We cannot eipcct erct 
to anire at the tne teat, bnt we can hope that not nearl; 10 man; catM of 
hiatns ai Leo stiU admita will be foand in the editions of twenljr yean hnn, 
e<ren if we may finally bare to admit iliat in many caaec the Archsisti' reces- 
sion has obliterated the liscea of the early text. This consemtiTe atlitndc 
of Leo leads him to leave many lines nncluiDged where a slight emenditica 
would make them perfect. It leads him likewise to keep the spelling of the 
MSS, even if it is not wholly conaistcnt. He makes no attempt to jatrodict 
the tpellins of Plantns' own time, as does (he Trinmrirate edition, ud 
thereby escape* many difficnltiei that the Tiinmrirate editon were worried bj; 
to adhere to the MSS lightens the labor, eren if it does Dot solve qnestiou. 

The fifth chapter. ' Anslanteodet i nud «,' is devoted to an attempt to letllc 
Male qneslioos connected with the application of the iambic law and in 
eatensiooi. Skatsch in iSgs had shown that a certain namber of tioduic 
words ending in short vowels could lose the vowel and be pronoimced u 
moaooylUbles. and in the concluding 'Ansblick' propounded the qnestioi 
whether lyncopiiion is to be restricted to the case* he has treated or "wUten 
oicht vielmehr in dem grossen Kotper der Plantioiscben Dichtnngen uch 
■ocfa noch weitere Spaien der Encheinnng finden, iwar ntcht mil ciici 
gewissen Kegel miisigkeil auflrelend wie jeoe, aber gelegentlich und Ttitia- 
telt?'* Leo answets this question decidedly in the affirmative, and discnnn 
in all it* bcariDgs (he thesis propounded in bis Viudiciae Plautinae of iSS;, 
that in scansion final •m or -it can be omitted entirely before a follmriif 
voweL If this theory is allowed, and it seems certain that it mast be allowed 
to some degree, a laif e number of lines thai have hitherto been held to teqiin 
emendation prove to scan easily, as Ihe difficult Ruder s 1006, EUtitnnu turn. 
At tgt ctrHtita). lumt n»m amittam lamem, where the Trinmvitale text tnnt- 
poses and the new Tenbnet marks a oomption. 

The wide application of this principle will be at once appreciated, but Leo 
pushes il quite beyond its natural limits to the explanation of a namber of 
more or less doubtful L.atin forms. If in -u the r is dropped, then i weakeu 
to ^ by Latin phonetic law; hence magit and magi are the same, and e*es 
where magii appears before vowels il may be scanned always as MfT. M 
for lalu is a (iirther weakeniog, and pelii and pote, ftriattU and fftaia hire 
the same relation to each other. But a still further and more imporual 
application can be made The double lerminatiDa of the second siDeilw 
passive has long been a subject of dispute. The most recent view li Ibil -"t 
is tbe equivalent of -foo. which is doublfal, and that -tris Is formed by the 
further addition of Ihe active termination -u, which is absurd. This Hpt>- 
nation is evidently xpU-aUtr until something better is discovered. Leo bold* 
that -ru and -n- are the same, differently pranaunced.> The origin of -ru he 
discreetly leaves untouched. Also -Hs and -U of the second plural indiacire 
and imperative aclivc may inlerchaoge ; as CisL 573 ttrtxitt di mid tiucrt. 

.y Google 


answered by 0/ av perditii, where Leo »«ys "atrvau wird ■■* servaHi 
Eefust." Here it leemi to me that there is no necesiity (or luch an inler- 
preution ; the aaiwer could jut ai well admit a preceding imperatiTe. More 
to bis purpose ii his second citation, Care. 4t eilequire, tboush U inirolves a 
different form. How this view can be made to explain grammarians' mistake! 
ti well shown b]r Rnd. 107 virili stxiu numgaaiH uZ/mr katid. al di iaiimt. 
This passage is cited by Priscian as proof thai Plaulus made lextu neoler ; bat 
as that has seemed incredible, editors have read tiiriif tecui. Leo holds that 
virilt is only another pronunciation of virilis. 

What the fate of this theoiy will be cannot be foreseen ; but while we may 
be inclined to admit the total elision oF the final syllable, it will probably 
leem to most critics that an explanation applicable to certain conditions and 
words has been pushed loo far by its eager author. Particalarly in some of 
the latter points does it seem that but slight eridence is adduced. Many 
adjectives in -u were followed by substantives with initial t : why this pecaliar 
corruption in the case of virilt atxm only? So in the case of the verb-termi- 
nations, why should some have become differentiated in literature and not the 
other farms 7 

With regard to final ••> Leo is unable to reach a definite conclnsion, but he 
thinks that probably the classical treatment of final -n is but a phase in its 
history subsequent to the period closed by Ennius, and that Plaalus conld 
retain or drop the -n-syllable before a vowel, according to the exigencies of 
the tnetre. 

ft may be remarked, further, that Leo holds that dfudii the pronunciation 
in all caiei, even when the hiatus involved could be avoided by pronouncing 
afiU. Combinations with monosyllabic pronouns are exceptions. The same 
holds good of /w'm, and exceptions are due to the archaistic period. 

The sixth chapter is devoted to Aiatus. Leo proves that the termination at 
was treated differently in early Latin, according to the case, thus: the gen. sg. 
avoids synaloephe, and either admits semi-hiatus or substitutes the form JJ ; 
the nom, pi. admits synaloephe, but also the hiatus ; the dat. sg. avoids hiatus 
and regularly suffers synaloephe. This difference in treatment he ascribes 
properly to the fact that in the dat, only do we have the original ending, while 
in the other cases the ending is secondary. Those few caies where the gen. 
suffers elision Leo would emend by transposition, though he does not make the 
change in his text. 

But Leo'^ work is not confined to the defense of the existing text. He 
emends vigorously and throughout all the plays. In many places he is very 
felicitous, in others he is less so, and a general criticism may be made that he 
pays too little attention to paleographic principles and more to what his study 
of the text leads him to think may have been the true reading. Many 
suggestions found in the apparaha he has not felt jnstiiied in inserting in the 
tent. Probably a good deal of light may still be thrown upon the text by 
studying the cormptioni of the MSS from the paleographical point of view. 
As « specimen of his work we may take the Truculentui, which will show 
likewise how it differs from the Goeti and Schoell edition. 

In the tdilic miner of Goctz and Schoell, 335 out of g6B lines rest upon 
emendations, the majority of which are slight and arc also admitted into Leo's 

.y Google 


text. In addition upward* of \fx> linct Me marked u compt and left in 
■Danf caies meaningleu. In the tditia maier these, ai well u othen vfaich 
ihould be accepted withoat emendation, are changed. In Leo't edition the 
obelns occun but 39 times, the remaining 130 lines having been emeadcd 
either \rj the admission of the emendations of other scholars, manjr of which 
ate very good, or b; Leo's own changes. Some of the Uiter are the followii^: 
5. mtHerrm mt qtddtm. Sch. (ed, maior) mw anma rgtaJan ; L>. ide nm fniJtm, 
which helps Ihe sense but little and i> paleographicallr difficult, la Atinii 
tratta ita ut kei est prestoenium. Sch. Athenat trainee, which is the teue 
desired, but introduces a new word ; L, Alitmt mtib^, which is donbtfsl 
Latin. Perhaps AiIuhoi tracto may be defended (or is traiHe better?). 19. 
BUchelei's ii^flieia danda for sui ptrttamanda is the best emeodstioa ^a 
proposed, and is rightljr admitted b; Leo. 33. atU am aut vinum etc Sch. 
amtariim oral, which ii right onlr so far as some form of orart is ued; 
BUcheler's j^fffrafjH/ is rery doubtful; Leo's suggestion as/ </Maf> nniM 
UN/is improbable. 40. Idea's itidtm li amaloriJ tor iluinn eit amattr stJ a n^ 
happy. 57. aifut hait ctlamus hoi tlampUna (BC, damna LZ) inJuttria. Sck 
teloBiui clam emmi tumma tm/ui^'a, which makes good sense, bnt is Tioleot ; 
Leo's ctlamut lui clam magna indtutria it Tery likely, supported as it is by Cu. 
45 magna indtatria and Vid. 41 minima inJuitria. How magna could comipt 
into mixa it is, however, diflicaU to see, whereas it could easily have come 
from minima, which we do not want. 158. male qtuu in not itlii. 3ch.iw^ 
jtai mm i^, after Bilcheler; L. male fuai in noi vii. The change ofconstnc- 
tion in the line he defends by reference to Bac. 463, and the omission of i&an 
by reference to Asin. 3J4 and Capt. 33S (Brii). The i^paratw criHeut \\ Eltcd 
with simitar references showing a very complete mastery of Plautns' dictioo, 
and thus forms a valuable aid to the stady of the text. 450. turn cnuiaitlqm. 
L. sMiHui cnuiamurjue, which makes good sense, bat is loo violent. 461. ■Hi 
ailult. Sch. niii aitu daelt ; L. happily niii cfft* toWm. Si 3. tMilla cUjw^ 
iic reliqidl eafiie aHiH. 5jch, strangely cafit favea M&iilf Leo cleverty iif 
atiiif uMsl! 570. hoc saltim lenial mtcum illi sub iiU afparet. Sch. kac uBtm 
itrvat : moala nitlrcia apfarti ; L. hee salltm : ran lerval Htc ulH tiH sit afpartt, 
which is not convincing. 619, qtdd nunc erg» hie ediese ei (CD, odtM ats B) 
tonfessus emnibia leui. Sch.. with singular infelicity, qmd nunc ergs lac tdii 
tenii}'i? res cenfetiail emnibtts \ L. odiestis (not new), confeisns omnine nfwi('nu 
Scioppius). Umnibus is defensible lingaistically. but Leo's omnina saici the 
metre, biq, aderv of Leo for nin abe ii good, as is also his acceptance of 
Geppett's dwn, 775. ego tiii male dicam aul tibi ad le male velim. ScL i*' 
tibifile ; Leo tibique aul. which is difficult to construe ; the passage still needl 
treatment. 793. iam livarem nleit CD, Utnre mut/ B. Cam. livortm hiie. tigbily 
accepted by Spengel and Schoell ; Leo's livertm verbo makes a better cooitniC' 
tiOD for istec. but is too violent. S36. vide (CD, videm B) qtusomnem faau 
imiiriam. Sch, idde juaeso magnam ne ; Leo, much better, vide in qtiaestitne «. 
S43. qtddem islam rem. L. cleverly qui admitti earn rem. SjS. qaanda fnaaa 
kabes. Leo very happily quanda quar aires iaiet. 

The remaining chapters of the Plaulioische Fotschungen are of greit 
interest, but do not aSecl the treatment of the text, and hence may be veiy 
briefly touched upon. In the second chapter, 'Das Leben des Plaatiis,' Lea 

.y Google 


tries to ihow thM we Icnow nothing ejlher of the lire of FlAUtui or his name. 
The anecdotes of hit life are not genuine, and a» to his nanie, we have no 
Kason to call him aught but flautut, thoDgh that was a nickname. Macnui 
li hot the name of hii profesiion, and T has no autboiilr- The third chapter 
i* deioted to the diuaMion of PlauCui' relalion to his originals, the fonrth 
chapter to the Prologuei, which Leo hold* lo be in the main genuine. 


C, SuetoDi Tranquilli Diiras Augustas. Edited with historical introduction, 
commentary, appendices and indices b; Evelyn S. Shockburgh. M. A., 
late Fellow and Assistant Tutor of Emmanuel College, Cambridge. 
Macmillan & Co., New York, 1896. 8vd, 315 pp, (2.75. 

The main object of this edition is historical, " M7 chief desire," sbti the 
editor, "has been to illustrate the work of Suetonius by putting before the 
reader, as fall; as space would permil. the materials which exist for construct- 
ing the history of the life and limes of Augustus and which expand and 
explain the necessarily brief and summBriied statements in the Biography 
itielf." Less attention, therefore, is given to points of teat and style than 
i* perhaps usual in an ordinary commentary to a classical author. But such 
notes on these subjects as occur, though brief, are generally luminous and 
inslmctive. The teat is mainly that of Roth (Leipzig. iSgo). 

The preface contains a brief account of the style of Suetonius, in which 
due emphasis is laid upon the individuality of il. Following is a short list of 
the principal editions, of monographs devoted lo the style and diction of 
Soetonius, and of works on the life of Augustus. In the latler I am somewhat 
mrprised nol to see V, Gardthausen's 'Augustus und seine Zeit,' Leipsig. 
1891 ff. This certainly would be 'found useful.' 

The inEroductioB deals with — i, the authorities for the life and reign of 
Aognstns and the rise and development of the principate ; 3, the life and 
writings of Suetonius; j, his authorities for the life of Augustus; followed by, 
4, a few remarks on some special points of leil-criticism, and, pp, Kxx*ii-xliv, 
a chronological table of the principal evenis during the life of Augustus. 

Page* t-176 contain the teat and commentary, which seems to be well fitted 
for the purpose intended, being carefully written, with references to authorities 
bearing upon the points in question and with reproductions of some of the 
most important coins of the period. Beyond the small number mentioned in 
the introduction, no MSS readings are given. To the list of trrata might be 
added Cell. 13 inatead of Galta, 13. p. 147, lirst column, second line from the 

Especially valuable and important is Appendix A, pp. 177-95, which contains 
the teat of the Monnmentum Ancyranum, with a brief introduction on the 
history of it, former editions, etc. Appendix B, pp. 197-200, is both novel 
and useful. It is in the nature of an excursus on Suet. lulius, SS, being, so 
far as i> now possible, a complete list of the assassins of Julius Caesar. 
Under each name is given the political history and manner of death, with full 
references to the ancient authorities. The book ends with a table of the 
family and connections of Augustus, followed by the indices. 

, Google 


Prof. Shnckbtugh't wotk, caiioDslr enoagh the 6rtl in connection witli 
StiMoniBs by nn English tcholar, i* > welcome addition to onr knowledge of 
««• who. i* MNie re^>ecti, ii an nnnnialljr dtScult author. A« B biognpher, 
and etpe<iall]r >i a biaftaphet with hii peculiar metbodt of compotitioa, 
Saet^aiat, abo*e all othn Latin writer*, leems to itand in need of jut the 
MHt v^f raligiiiewMMt that the editor haa given him. In no cace, pcrhapvit 
ihii M •ndeat ai in ^e btocnphr selected. Br a cnrioa* fatality Ibe in 
(r«alr>i ifJ^ the Roaan eapcron, Aognstus and Trajan, happen ID be the nif 
%»«« iSmi wb<M we. ia sonc respects, know the least. There ii do Roou 
«a>t«nM of whoB so man; anecdote* arc still preserved, but nathlDg ii 
aacMn; a«:iK>r.;ies br^^i^cs the chasm between OctaTianiu the IriumTir ud 
Ac^>:«i :be ra;<ei«t. Here the BanatiTC of Saetooias is conspicouul; 

Kiuv F. Suns. 

.y Google 

Akcuiv rOK Latbiniscki Lbxikogkafhib vhd Grahhatik. FQnfler Jahr- 

Pp. l-is. Under the title ' Kleidung and Wohnang im Sprichwort,' A. Olio 
continues his studies of prorerhs. These refer chiefly to the primitiTe con- 
ditions of life, uninflaenced by luxorr or change of fuhion. The lack of anir 
reference to the bead-dreM U, of coarse, due to the limited use of hats. 

I^. 16-33. Albrecht KAhler SDmntanies the various etjmioloEies of tc^t, 
■.nd treats at length of its use. The Tiew of Geo^es and others (ecu = tn. ce), 
of Ribbeck {et = *efiie found in tcjidi, etc., i. e. tut = i-gut-<*\ of Corslen 
(the / off-eci a form of the dem. ■'}, of VaDi^ek (an imper. of the root ai), are 
not regarded entirely satisfactory. It is a deictic exclamatiop meaning ' lookl' 
'look there!' 'there!' and is a feature of the iermo fandHarU. It is lacking in 
the fragment* of the Roman historians, in Caei., Val. Max., Snet.; occurs once 
in Sail., three times in Liv., once in Curt.; in Tac. only Dial. 3. 17, in Amm. 
once ; in epic poetry occasionally. In comedy it is usually combined with 
some demonitratiTe form, as ttiuai, HciUttm, etc., with a preference for the 
third person. But out of the thirty examples in which the simpler form occurs 
in Plant., strangely enough half are with the 6rst perton. 

AtUtm unites readily with eict, and in Ter. there it only one instance (Ad. 
995) of the simple form len with which aMttm ii not attached. The only 
iniunce of ecu in Sail. (Jog. 14. 11) is in union with auUm. Verg. ii the last 
author to use this combination frequently — ten times in all. The other poets 
of the Augustan period, and prose-writers as well, avoid it, though Ovid, e. g., 
uses icci alone some eighty time*. The rare use in later poets is in evident 
imitation of Ve^. 

The development oiiedetct is somewhat different. Eeet in connection with 
a dem. i/etttm, etc.) occur* with itJ in Plant, about fifty times, and usually in 
announcing the approach of some one; in Ter., eight times. In the later 
period, with the exception of a few instances in Cic, this usage vanishes until 
we reach the tragedies of Seneca. 

The compound forms Ktum, eciam, etc., are restricted almost entirely to the 
archaic period, and are found only in the ace. The few passages apparently 
showing the nom. (Plant. Men. iSo, Stich. 536 and Ter. Eun. 79) have been 
emended. In Ter. we find no forms compounded with itit and I'lA. The 
compound forms, in accordance with their derivation, eeei-rum. etc., were 
properly used with the third person, but in the popular langoage they some- 
time* assumed the more general meaning of act and occurred with other 
persons, as in Heaut, 819, etmm me. 

■ Tb* isaauriH of iha ArcbW, whicb hara bHB >iu|HDd 

.y Google 


PP.3J-48. 'Satnr and die dmTOD ■bgeleitetcD WOitei.' A. Fnock. Fat- 
meilj printed u ■ prognm, Kiel. 188S. The deriTstion nncertiin. In the 
eart7 pcnod eencfsllf applied to mcD, ftod in its Uler uie almoit whoUTlo 
aoimaJi. Onlf thirteen pl&ces where satitr does not mean eiia fltnai ire 
mentioned, and bat two of theie diitinctljr mean ihriua. The constmctios 
with the ^n. is rare. The labtlaotiTited fonn occura in proper nimti. u 
Sattv and Sahtnti. The femioioe form ii found in the phraie ftr itlaraK, 
and in tatwram in all periods. The earlj farm salura became taitra afler tiK 
analofy of maxwnur — maximta, etc., where the change it doe to the ItbiiU. 
Then follows treatment of taluriiat, laturare, etc. 

P. 46. Note b]r Havel on the snbj. gen. {Laut afumm), and by Schmiu n 
' Interemo, Pereato nnd Zngeh&riE«s.' 

^P- 49-f S' A carefnl itndjr of all the meanings of LiUerMtra hj WfilffliD. 
who 6ndi the modecK meaning ' lileratare' occarring perhaps in Vtti. VI, 
Praef. 6, and certainly in Tert. de Spect. 17 and afterwards, a meaniDE hm 
rec^niied bj Georges. 

of the 'Sabstantiva personalia anf f, mu.' 

Pp. 89-106. A lexical article on ■ AbomiDabilis— abortus.' H. Ptoen. 

P. 106. A note on 'Quarranta' by Wolfflin.and on ' Ambagio' by Nettleililp. 

Pp. 107-14. Two lexical articles by WttlBliD : one on • Abolefacio— ibtdU.' 
the other ' Aborbito, Abpttmus — abienuntio,' and a note on ' Abielatit.' 

Pp. 135-33. A continuation of Grobet's 'Vnleirlateinische Substrate roaa- 
nischer Witrter,' from Qtta(d)ragiHta to nuf(v}Airv. 

Pp. 133-44. Miscellen; 'Zur Geschkhte der HauiltatM,' Sittl.— ' Medu, 
matliobarbulus, motum,' and ' Zahladverbia anf ieni,' Stowasser. — 'Scobete. 
scopere, tcrobere,' and ' Romanisches bei Cassian,' Petschenig. — ' At^poniiB.' 
Landgraf. — ' Theoliscus.' Cramer. — ' Animabilis, oflbcare (eSbcare) and pibu,' 
Hauler. — ' Inpenias MOrtel,' H. — 'ZnCommodian/Thielmann. — ' PeromDii,' 

Pp. I4S-S3- Reiiew of the literature of 1887-88. 

Pp. 161-91. ' Substantivische Farataxen.' Casta* Landgraf. The aDibof 
refers to all such repetitions as vir vimm Itgit, vir cum virt ccngrtHtv, whick 
he resolves into two classes: those in which the relation of parataxis ii 
expressed by case, and those by prepositions, as in the above examples. Ml 
instances of the lirst class are treated under four divisions correspondinE 10 
the four oblique cases: Gen. ntqta aqua aquae tuqut lacttst lattit nnf w 
Hmilius, Flaut. Men. 10S9; Dat. roHa raHotti par tit. Sen. Ep. 66, 33 ; tiocb^ 
lapidtn lerit, Plaut. Asin. 31 ; Abl. eailrii taslra ton/em. Eon. Tn^. 140 R- 
and often. Those of the second class include instances either with one 
preposition, maun ad manum, or with two, a Itrra in trrram. 

P. 191. ' Nachtrag zu S. 140,' Landgraf; and a note on Pifiima=ftn» 
mtntula by Stowasser. 

.y Google 

REPOgrs. 375 

Pp. tQS-ias. An aiticle on ' Die liteiniicben Adjektiia aaf etui' hj Schocn- 
venh ; rerised and enlarged bjr Wejman. The authors attempt to treat hy 
clasie* of the deriTation and meaning of the S44 (Pauckei) and more 
adjeclires of this type. The early form in -emut is Tery rare except in 
/armensMi. Both inscriptioDS and MSS offer a few instances in -eitm, and a 
few alio in -uniui and ■mm. Most of these adjectives are fonned from 
mbstantires, and those in Cicero are almost exclusively of this kind. 

Forms in -onw are sometimes made from adj. items, bnt only btlliietm, 
eM»iut and Unttrieenu belong to the class, per. In a few instances the 
primitive is alio a verb. Various irregular formations are explained, and in 
some cases the authors take issue with Pauckcr (Votarb. i. lat. Rprachgesch. 
71-93), e. g, amiUHon)Bitu. Digrdlatta is from dignilai, rather than digims 
with il interjected (Panckcr). The large number of words with an ■ in the 
stem {gbriestu, etc.) produced by analogy a few such forms as curiaiiu with i 
inserted. Likewise some adjectives like nwriuesui are formed with a spurious 
u after the ftnalogy of primitives of the foartb decl. in -lui and -jui. Ftbri- 
tatm, etc., are formed after the anali^y of teHeiricesta, btlUcmus, etc. The 
occasional forms with primitive suSx -in, -it and -ig are considered. These 
adjectives are formed from verbs of the first, second, and third conjugation by 
dropping the thematic vowel and inf. ending (ra). and adding -mus; e.g. 
^itrtta. In verbs of the fourth conj. the inf. ending alone is dropped, blandi- 
*ittt. The development of -etia is represented thus : himin-vattt-io-i, Iwtimm- 
lim, Itaminaruui, /uininasm (the authors strangely writing the vowel a in -vanl 
for the generally accepled I. E. e {-wnt, -»(«()]■ The meaning is ' abounding 
in ' : riiHeius (Hor.) =pUnta rimarum (Ter.). and the adj. in -Dtus a paralleled 
in all periods by the substantive with fimia. A secondary meaning corres- 
ponding to the Grk. -iti^ and -fii% ii also not uncommon, as in cadavtrtsa 
fatiet (Ter.). A goodly number of abstract noans in -toi, like multrwtilat, 
were added by Cicero and later writers. 

The meaning of these adj. was sometimes softened by a dim. suffix, as in 
fBrrniennUa (Vario), and sometimes strengthened or weakened by preps, {ex, 
frat.per, mi, etc.)- Illogical is the use of a negative prefixed to these adjec- 
tives. Nevertheless such combinations at iiuiffUiastii occur. The article 
closes with a glance at this suffix in the Romance languages, and a list of the 
two hundred words treated. 

P. 333. Note on 'Supementoi' by Funck, and on 'Angnstator' by Nettle- 

Pp. 133-33. Additional remarks by Meyer on ' Das lateinische Suffix 0, 
tnU: Cf. pp. 56-^S. 

P. 343. Note on 'Cultor' by Funck. 

Pp. 343-S3. ' Abrepticius— abripio,' with elucidations by H. Ploen. 

Pp. 154-63. ' Abrodo— abrotonum,' with special note on ahrogart. J. H, 

.y Google 

rj.v.41. or FHILOLOGY. 

• -f a.w=^ -ax. r-=i[tf a AjiA. IV 455 C had beea utitipUed 

, pudicmhu,' Huler.— 

: ;*Ta AracLi Fradiick G«tber, the Tiduu 

Tw:=r=9 ?r±pcK^Kaca is Latciniidieai.' Cul 
Mpoand pKpoiilicat 
d forEilIU 
kof (bcun- 
-t;s^ a FUsu E«ii^ C»U etc, »«J • 
:. i.jta . A few Bcw fatas an idUodKtd 
:zs u J-sw^Ef penodi, paitinlulf in ilic 
r; a ^ TTT^sp ol Ac CIraTcb Fuben. 
^-7«.j= ajcuec far tbe nfce of emphwii 
eves. ;> BUT csKX tkc Bcw font {i*^ 
» .M-vaj ii m Bade on Greek midtli. 
- : r » g; ■tc^-micilly vitkoat tppual 
I ^ I I ■ :te prepocitioai are similu " 
L ^ccs z^ — ii'm i« difff ra](» And 1^ 
. -^vr"-- 3 dal ucni&c&lioa. The aoat 
:=9ef ^BC csBpoacd piepoucions rttiio 
s 5-^ i»; HT farqaaily they are ito 
mr-vB. iijKs wetc oriiciBalljr adverbl. lib- 
irrr^-'' emtiicTtd as adTerbs at finl »ad 
V !£=.£. TT.'-: '»•■' ibe w-tead prepoutioa it 

r:.s .-c » n^^Bcadi witli ^epoiilMall 
&- s.-';-^^ V.ik tk eaccption of An' 
r.-s^NL «" wcKKTaablcs antil Ute. Tb* 
A.-; a KcK^c: — ai« canndcTcd indirid- 

<k-t;r. .-« s :W denralias of -mu ftna 

.y Google 

jiEPORTs. yjy 

mpprovet niher of Oilhoff't view, from *evttui-e, *e-vtnt-te (e-^^t-ta) as 
dt/tnsu-m from dtfmd-U. 

Pp. 369-86. In thU Domber A. Olio continnei his Ireatmcnt of ptoTerbs 
under the heading ' Familie und Freundschart im Sprlcbwort.' In lome 
initancef the idea of the proverb appears in a variety of formt; e. g. Cic. Or. 
10. 33. '1^ niMI diffieik amantt pula; Verg. Eel. 10, 69, Omnia vineil amor; 
Plin. Ep. IV ig, 4, tidamor, gut magisler ttt o^mus ; HieroD. Ep. 13, 40, ^iMi 
omantitmAtntmat; ib. Ep. ij, l,fiiia caritaiemnia n^eral. 

Pp. 387-98- ' Id genus und Venrandtes.' WQlfflin. A syslemalic attempt 
to trace the development of this idiom throughout the literature. The aces. 
id eenut uiA iet gaiiis are limited to Lucil. in earl; Latin, and to Vano in the 
classical and silver Latin, with few exceptions; Cic. Att. 13. 11, 3; Liv. I, S. 
3 ; Hor. Sat. 1, 6, 44 ; and possihly Plin. N. H. 3, 114 ; common in late Latin. 
Varro nses this eipreslion not only in apposition with the nom. and ace., but 
alio with the abl. Quad gami occurt tomewhal note fiequently in the better 
period of the literature, but always restricted to the nom. and ace. Quid gettus 
tMd trmmr genui were le*x common. Idm.iliuJ, islud.oHud gtnm and the like 
never occur. The subititnles for the various expieuioni are also mentioned. 

P. 398. A defence of De/itxului in Mart. la, 59, 9 by Emil Reno. 

EV- 399-414- 'Qnalcnus.' Wftlfflin. The uses of fva/niiu are considered 
rapectively a* a local, temporal, causal, final, and consecutive particle, as 
equivalent to quemedt, and to itttioduce a clause in place of ace. and inf. It 
is a rare word in claaiical Latin and fails utterly in early Latin, in Varr., 
Cae*., SalL, Verg., Sen. Rhet., Luc, Stal. and others. Only the local meaning 
occurs in Vitr., Col., the Elder Pliny, and the Script. Gromatici. 

P. 414. 'Glossae nominum. Nonias, p. 91.' Nettleship. 

Pp. 415-37. ' I>ie Adjektiva auf -iciui: WolBlin. A thorough-going treat- 
ment of these adjectives in regard to iheir derivation, meaning and extent in 
the literature. There are two classes ; those in which it belongs to the stem 
and those in which it is a part of the soffix. It is the latter class that comes 
paiticnlarty within the scope of this article. This may be resolved into two : 
denominatives with short ■ (fltdilieiui), and adjs. with long ■ derived from the 
perfect pus. part. (immtHtuiui). The four adjectives derived from present 
stem according to Piucker (Vorarb. i. lai. Sprachgesch., Betl. 18B4) peimll of 
another explanation, e. g. piHHut \ ptHtkiut \ : /tuliditaii ; failiUdiuin. The 
denominatives formed from ■ and o-stems were earlier than those from a-stems 
— the latter not found before Petron. 4$. 4, lanUHcia. Those from denial 
stemi are rare, and later than those from r-siems. The meaning of -iVivi 
was originally ' appertain iog' or 'belonging to.' though various shades were 

The adjs. of participial origin are as a : i in frequency in comparison with 
the denomiostives. The meaning was closely related to that of the participle. 
For example, diJitUim : dtditm : : littrtiHm : Hitrlut (= Httratut). Sometimes 
they correspond in meaning to adjectives in -iiwf, which were likewise derived 
from perf. parts. These adjs. of passive roimslion became also active in 
sense, and were nsed like present active participlei. 

.y Google 

m-tr- minuasiWidcttf 

r*.:^ lagt lad At 

-• B-.^c to zic * VmlflrixteiDiidu 

ai xax of dm tnct etpue 
33 ifDaicBiij vritten I>t>i 

£:aa =/jam, occarring M eaJl; u tbe 

eia^iaiions oa aiiimiMt uid aiiistn- 

i,cf-Atrh,V»9o). Wilhelm Bnnde* 
riik special coninent on al«H!> tad 

.y Google 

PP' S34-9- 'Abicondite — •bacoosor' hj Tbiclmuin, and a note on aiuiilut 
by A. Fntick. 

Pp. 540-64. Lexical article on ' Absoluo ' bjp Ploen, and a note on truifia- 
tlonlii by Haoler. 

Pp. s65-8i. MiKcUen: 'Utrarnqoe als Adverbinm,' 'Amare facio.' and 
'Candebrnm,' Hamleiter. — 'Za donicam, donee, doneqne, doniqne, dune,' 
Zinunermann. — 'Noch einmal die Verba auf -iiian nnd -itart' A. Funck. — 
■Zo Caoart Fortsetiem,' H. Schiller.— 'Zu den Zahladverbien auf -eim,' 
Thnrneyien. — ' Ueber eine eisentUmliche Wortslcliung bei inqait,' and ' Re- 
flexive* proKpere nnd miscere,' Petschenig. — ' Increbraie,' Hauler. — 'Zum to. 
genannlen ianpov irpircfmr,' Hauler.— ' Inire,' Havet,— ' Discipulm.' Breal.— 
'Vulgiilateiniicbes ansden Rechtsqnellen,' H. Sachiei. — 'Der euphemistiscbe 
Gebrauch von pacare,* WOlfflin. 

Pp. SS2-606. Review of the literature of 1S87-88. 

Pp. 606-9. NelcTolt^e ; Emil Baehre 


E, Meyer, Der Ursprung des Tribanat*. The tialements of the annalists 
repirding tbe origin of the tribunes and the tribes are mere hypotheses. The 
DDcleas of the Roman state was not Iht 'Servian' city, which. belongs lo the 
period of the Samnite wars, but the earliest republican city of the tout rrgUnet. 
Here dwelt the owner) of the neighboring farma, the artisans and the rest, 
Di^nited into four tribes. The original four (not two) liibunes were the 
leaders of these tribes, chosen by them, not by the mriat, and bearing to the 
f/fii the relation of patron to client. Even later Iheir jurisdiction was really 
confined to the pffmeriian. Theii nnmber was perhaps increased to ten, when 
tbe country people were enfranchised and enrolled in tribes. The secessions 
of the fiUir in 494 and 449 have no historical foundation, and the maiu tater, 
Vetfioia and the other details are pure inventions. The parable of Menenins 
Agrippa is an old sloty referred arbitrarily to 494. 

J. Vahlen, Varia. XLII, holds that Porphyiio on Hor. Sal. I 6. 41 refers to 
the life prefixed to his commentary ; XLIII defends Cic. de rep. I 36. $6 qtd 
nt ait tettm Ofymptan Homenis cmvtritrtt, and cites III lo. 17, besides Caesar, 
Pctronins, Plalo, etc., for inlerfccted inquit or l^if ; XLIV defends nunc quod 
in eadem ia Caes. B. G. VI 14. 4. explains in as causal, and upholds the use of 
Germain in the relative clause by citing V 4. 1. 6. I, etc.; XLV defends il'hi( 
n . . . ore df in D. Chrys. la. 18 by comparing %yi, and shows that hXhjf rt 
often means AUuc " «<» in Chrys.; XLVI defends latti fiuiHttm . . . esUntanl 
in Sen. de pTov. 4. 4 by connecting laiti with nulUre ratu, and cites other cases 
of trajection in Seneca. 

H. Joachim, Die Ueberliefeiung aber Jesus' letiles Mahl. Marie is the 
oldest and best authority for the Last Supper, and Matthew follows the same 
aoatce, with a few additions. John i* the fint to name the tiajlor, the others 

.y Google 


m t fe thai be H well koowB. Lake mllen the tradition to nit the Utn 
belief thai tkii ni the paovtcf acaL vbercai it wai Tcallf eaten tbe itj 
before tbe fieaat. Put diOen ndicallj from the gospels, for he i> the GtX to 
mdicaie that Jeaax »««.>.i:.J— 1 a rile. He alto deTelops the idea thii Jens' 
death iccsted foT g ij en eaa of tias lo mankind, a later apostolic theory first 
adraiHxd hj HsUbew (t. s8X Peter wai not tbe sooice of Haik, but of PuL 
E. Ziebank. Der Flacb tm eriecfaijckea Recbt. Tbe cone of the e^ 
piOected oot oolj sacfed piopertf and the obaervaocei of religiOD. but 4t>o 
tbe Banral obligattooi of Ban to Ban and even the state and its Uiri. It wu 
I»escribed as a pesaltj thronghoot tbe Greek world, bat eipeciallr io tlie 
islandi and Axia Uiaor. It was preierred from earlier times b; the poveiof 

G. Kaibel. Kratinoi' "WmjiK and Euripides' Kjklops. The foimei jdij 
opens oa tbe seashore with a choms of Odjaseos' companions. Alter i 
drinking boat with Poljphemos, the chonis go to the cave and their pUct il 
taken b; an arri^no-aof twelTe Kyklopet ; when the 'OittBa^ retam, Ihei}W 
besios and tbe Ejpklopei perhaps defend an absolnle monarchj, «hil< tbe 
Greeks uphold demociacr. Then follows the blinding and the flight, aod tbe 
parabasis ends the plaf. The close similaritj' of the close of the Kyklapi U) 
the end td the Hecnba shows that the Hecnba borrowed from the Kyklopi. 
A comparison of 417 ff. with Ale 756 and the weakness of Odysseus' rhetoric 
(183 ff.) make it probable thai the Kyklops is also earlier than the AlceHis 
(438), (bough later than the 'Oi5unr^. Aeschylus' ^tovvaoii rpo^ was a utyr. 
drama with a doable choras of satyr* and nymphs, whom Medea rejuTcntIo 
when Diooysos returns from his wanderings. 

Th. Mommsen. E>as Regenwnnder der Uarcns-Saale. The letter of Mircm 
Asrelius to the senate, on which the historians depend, is not ipurioDS. They 
date the prodigy 174, and tbe colamn was not erected till after the emperar't 
death, so that the many events recorded make the prodigy seem fortbeibuk 
than it really is. The confirmation of the imfiemtfrii attlama/u by the senile 
is not improbable (cf. Tac. Ann. I 58), when we remember Marcos' modeiaiioo. 
The representation on tbe column ii less fnll than Dio's account, but dM 
inconsisient with it. The prodigy was an answer to the prayers of tbe 
emperor and his army, not of (he Christians atone. The connection wilb the 
twelfth legion is a pure hction. 

P. Viereck, Qaittangen ans Ksnnis Dber Liefening »on Saatlcom, These 
are contained in an Egyplian papyrus at Berlin dated ijS/q A. D. The 
headings were written by the clerk of the mToj^ym and the rest filled oit 1^ 
each farmer. They show that an ooto^ of grain was reckoned to an ipcnpa^ 
land, and (hat Karanis was a centre of distribution for three great plains. 

G. Thiele. Anaiimenea. The t^^? andet Anaaimenes' name is probililj 
not his. The whole work is made up of fragments of earlier treatise!, pat 
together with little care, so (hat we find false definitions of aarcJa/iif («) soJ 
ttirr6eoii ova/iiruv (33) among other errors. The style abounds in repetiliou 
and the transitions are defectire. The author was not a sophist, bil a 
ioyoypA^, tacking A(tic grace, unscrupulous, superstitious. Inteipolstioai 

, Google 

JiEPORTS. 381 

•re detected in w(/iO( 90. 17 (Sp.), ilwf 77. i, napixctv a6. It ; in 64. S read oW 
iiiivi U^ov /tl/t^/itt. 

C. Robert, Nochmals das ?Uto-Re1ief. This cannot be a family group not 
■ grave-relief. The bad perspective of the chair-arni, the use of the rug with 
the cnshion, and other details point to it» modem origin. The artist has put 
a Plato head on a copy of Ihe Vatican Menander, and the drapery of atl the 
figures it awkward and inconsistent. 

Fi. Krebi, Hetiocbos und Farthenope, publishes a Greek papyrus fragment 
fiom the British Mnseuia containing a novel written from dictation in a 
provincial dialect. Kaibel and Robert append a restoration of the document. 

Miscellen. — U. Wilcken. Two recent papyri show the um of an era dating 
from the tpir^i^ of Guiarditii /A'ui. which waa the conquest of Alexandria, 
Aog. I, 30 B. C— R. Htnog. The claim of Kos to be the birthplace of Leto 
(Herond. 11 gS. Tac. Ann. XII 61) was first advanced by the Asklepiads in 
order to oatdo Epidaar^is and Delos.— C. Robert. The TyskiewicE vase in 
FrOhnec, PI. 13, is proved spurioua by the faulty presentation of the myth, by 
the modem gestures, and by the drapery of Phriios, which exposes the left 
aim and covers the right (cf. Ar. Av. 1 567). 

H. Wellmann, Leonidai von Byzanz und Demostratos. 
of fishes is not taken from Oppian, but both used Leonidas (Bor. 100 B. C). 
who was also a source of Ovid. Leonidas read Aristophanes' epitome, not 
Aristotle himself. Aelian also borrows from Demostratos, who was inde- 
pendent of Aristotle and fond of the marvellous. 

U. von Wilamowitz-MoellendorEF, Die Herkunft der Magneten am Maeander. 
They were related to the Macedonians and settled in Thessaly ; they emigrated 
to Crete and from there to Asia. They were crowded out of Ephesus into the 
valley of the Lethaens, and lost all remembrance of their language and their 
heroes. Their gods are hellenized barbarians, they have no real connection 
with Apollo, and the inscription published by Kem records a mere fiction of 
later origin. 

B. Keil, Der Perieget Heltodonis von Alhen, publishes and discusses frag- 
ments of this author preserved in the Vitae X Orat., Pliny, the leiicogrephers, 
etc. These show that he was aUo an antiquarian, and gave full and accurate 
descriptions of the condition and situation of the monuments, arranged 
according to pertons or families. He often preserves important inscriptions. 
The decrees tn the Vita Dem. 847 A are all from Heliodoras. not Kraterus. 
The latter was a pupil of Aristotle,and his owoyuj^ contained only documents 
of the fifth century. 844 A is from Hennippus, S43 F from Caecilius, In 
Pliny, only XXXIV 76 and possibly XXXIV 74 and XXXV 134 are from 
Heliodoras. Me may have been Ihe source of the 6^/u6wpara cited by Pollux 
in the Hermokopidae affair. Heliodoras probably wrote in fifteen books on 
the monuments of Athens, jrcpl an/urit^juf being the first, ^tpl /ivti/uiuv the 
third, and others rrepl avaOjifiAruv and n-c/ii rpiirdduv. The decrees, didascalia 
and historical explanations were contained ii 

.y Google 


B. M«yei, Der UnpranE des Odimeaunjrthai. The oldest p«t of the 
Odyiie7 if X 3J-45, S4-104. 111-^34, with the Kyklopeia, the beginaiDg of • 
■nd the recognition in 1^. Thi> was told by OdjriMOt to the Thespn>tiuii,l»t 
his true hone wu in Arcadia (cr. Pani. VIII 14. %, 44. 4). Here Penelope, 
too, was honored a* the mother of Pan and was perhaps idem ical with Artoiui. 
Odysseus it only an epithet of PoseidoD. ' (he angty,' and wratiTrofda; suits the 
god better than the hero. The Nekyia is only another reision of the idea 
that gods die as well as men. Ithaca appears as the farthest land visible from 
Arcadia (cf. i ai it was like an 'island of the blett' to the mountaincen, 
a lit home for the god. The Kirke epos, which, like the Kalypio lay. ii oslf 
a repetition of the idea of the Nekyia, i* next in age and was developed ia 
Ionia parellel with the Argonaut myth. — Todtendienst nnd Herocncnit. 
Among the Greeks, a* among the Egyptians, Hebrew) and Arabs, the dead 
■re shadowy and unieat, and the ofleritiEs were snggested by affection, not I7 
any fear of their power. Hero-worship originated in the displacement of 
local deities by the Olympian system. 

H. Graeven publishes and comments on a fragment of Lacharet. This 
defends the ancient custom of using metricnl feet in proae, but its ows 
prologue follows the more modern rale that two unaccented syllables ihoold 
precede the last accent of the kolon. Lachares thus occupies middle grtxiiiil 
between the old and new systems of rhetoric. The fragment contains loag 
extracts from Dionysius and Hennogenes. 

F. Blass, Die Danae des Simonides. This is a complete poem, but b not 
atrophic. It is a dithyramb like the Europa and Memnon (cf. Hot. Od. I IS, 
III 37}. The situation was explained by a intl^ei^. as in tragedy. 

Th. Mommsen. Armenische Handschriften der Chionik des Eusebios. A 
comparison of the errors in GNE shows that GN were copied from E after its 
mutilation. N being more exact than G. 

P. Stengel, Zu den attischen Ephebeninschriften. ^pavro roiif ^uu[ r^ (hnti 
in CIA. II 467. I. 10, etc., does not mean that men carried oxen on their 
shoulders, for the gods received only willing victims, and the absence of tbciib 
excludes any idea of a ball-light. We have merely a different term for tht 
usual aiitpvciv {avrXtlv, y 44S) of the sacrifice. 

A. Hoeck. Der EintrJtt der Mflndigkeit nach attischem Recht. Ar. Rep. 
Ath. 41 states that an Athenian reached his majority at the tnd <}l bis 
eighteenth year. We may reconcile the data of Demosthenei' life (Dem. 17. 
4, 6) with this statement, if we assume that he was bom about June J84. IdX 
his father about May 376. and attained citizenship in June 366. 

W. Strootmann, Der Sieg Dber den Alamannen im Jahre 36S. Since 
Aurelius Victor (34. 3} alone mentions this event, Dun cker refers the VICTOR. 
GERMAN, on coins to a victory of Auretian in 370. But the title Germinim 
borne by Claudius as early as 369 (Rev. Arch. 38. l3o) confirms the stateaeit 
of Victor. 

J. Vahlen, Varia. XLVII, defends oMyuv 6^ nvuv iv oC^-oic in Galen, Prolrep. 
I, p. 18 Kaib.; XLVIII defends the passages bracketed by Aroim in D.Chcys. 

.y Google 


13. 84, 13. 9, 7. 98, sDd cites man^r cases of limilsr repetition in the reUtive 
danse. — In Mionc. Pel. Oct. 19. 4 Eo altiar . . . tradttmn refen to Genes, i. a 
and thoald read Etie allivr, where tiU ii concessive. It was written h, hence 
the corraption. The defence of this pasiage itrengthens the other O. T. 
reference in Minucius (34. j). 

G. Wenttel. Zu den atticistischen Glossen bei Fholios. Photius, in his 
(reatmettt of Atticismi, used the lexicons of Pausanias and Dionjrslus of Hali- 
kamassus. To the former belong the explanation of pioverbs and comments 
on leligion and law. to the latter the unexplained proverbs, stylistic and 
grammatical comments, and passages where 'Iuvc[ are contrasted with good 
OMte, or 'EX%:rvE; cited instead of 'Arruiai to support some rule. An exami- 
nation of the glosses on Tbukydides shows that they all come from Dionysius. 

J. Toepffer, Das attische Gemeindebnch. The ^(opjiitdv ypaiAiiartuni was 
not a list of men eligible to office, for it included ephebi.but of ail the cititens. 
those possessing {ipx"") 'he right of inheritance ('.^f'f: cf. Aesch. i. 103, 
Harpok. s. v.). The Jjii'iapxot, too. had nothing to do with elections, but were 
the custodians of this record, ^frir also came to be synonymous with iXtniai, 
the ages (iB to 60) under which the citizens were enrolled. All family rights 
were controlled by the state, Athens had no iui ftivatum, 

H. Schanz, Snetons Pratum. The ^cpl Sva^/uM Xllcuv, being in Greek, was 
no part of the Pratum, and the vert>orum differentiae was merely a collection of 
synonyms from Suetonius' works. The nipi vo/iiiiuv, de genere vestium. Indicra 
bisloria and de anno Rotnanorum belong to a separate treatise called Koma. 
The Pratum was made up as follows: Fart I. Man. Book I. The origin of 
man. 3. The parts of the human body (Reitf.. pp. 373. 373). 3, Sicknesses 
(de Titiis corporal ibas). 4. The course of human life (Prise. B. si). Part 11. 
Time (Prise. S. k>}. 5. The century. 6. The year. 7. The month. S. The 
day. Part III. Nature. 9. Natural phenomena (Isidor. de nat. 36). 10. Ani- 
mal* (SchoL Bern. Georg. 4. 14). II. Plants. IS. Minerals. Suetonius prob- 
ably used Nigidiut Figulus, who alio has this threefold division. Censorinus 
is oar chief source for Part I, and Isidorus for Part III. Both used Part II, 
but Censorinus gives fuller and more faithful citations. 

G. Kaibel, Sententiarum Liber Septimus. Emendations to Aristophanes, 
Kratino*. Eupolis and Hermippus. Schol. Ven. ad Ar. Vesp. 1169 refers to 
the philo-Spanan Amynias (cf. Ar. Vesp. 463 ff-. la^J ff.. Nob. 463 C). Her- 
mippus' Iambi and Kratinos' Seriphii were written about 433. 

A. Behr, Der amphilochische Krieg, The inscription in Hem. XXVI 43 
doe* not prove that the Kcrkyraean aristocrats took part in this war. If they 
had done so, the democrats would not have stayed at home in Kerkyra. They 
mast have returned early in 436, before the war which resulted in the complete 
de*tmcti<m of their friends. In 1. 10 read iiravamivruv, referring to some 
earlier factional strife. 

Miscellen. — Th. Mommsen, A new copy of CIL. VIII 979 shows that 
Altiu Varint and Considius were Ugali of Scipio (705-8), and a Lilybaeon 
inacription mention* L. Plinius as Itgalus of Sex. Pompeius (71S-18}. — W. 
Kroll tbowt the inaccuracy of MuUer's text of Psendo-Kaltiithenes by a 

.y Google 


colUtion of BCFLMVW for I a6, p. 37.— F. Blau. Till the fourth ccntur 
the healhen vrate X^n^uvoi, but th« believera (after 100) X/iiffrieMi. Thu 
Jnitin Martyr iii«i ibe former in bis apolo^es, but the Uder in bii Diitopt 
intended for Je«ra. The l^tin Ckristiam originated independently in Rome. 
perhaps u early as Nero. — H. Grseven. The thcoietical part of Nilcolwii' 
Frogymnasmala it fonnd only in Brit. Mus. II. BS9, and may be emended by 
tbe scholia to Aphthonius.— B. Keil. Ar. Rep. Atb. does not mention the 
officials of (be Oropos territory knom from IGS. 3499, 4254. etc., to wc on 
hardly accept 'A/i^utpau in 54. 7 gainst palaeographic evidence. The Ampbi- 
araea came between Metag. 9 and Pyan. 19. — A. B. Drachmann. The sticbw 
numbers published from Cod. Vat. Gr. 13B are obtained by simply coantiag 
the linn, not by calcalation. — G. V. Thompson. The Athenian anny ms led 
by a strategus at early as 610 (Slrabo. XIII j8) 01 590 (Plut. Solon 11). sad by 
490 the polemarcb had become a mere ligure-head. This militate! agaim 
Keil't emendation of Ar. Rep. Atb. 4. 3 in bis Soloniscbe Verfassnng,it4,N.t. 

U.Wilcken.AlexandrinischeGesandtschaften vorKaiserClandins.pnbliiliti 
a Berlin papymt {511) containing a report of the compUinti made by the 
Anti-Semites of Alexandria against Agrippa It before Claud ini and Agrippins. 
S3 A. D. This serves to correct the partisan accounts of Philo and Josepboi. 
Claudius display) hit pedantry by allusioni to Tarquin and ATilins. ton of 
Romnlns. The Paris papyrus (Herm. XXVII 464) and another from Bcrlia 
(341) tell ofa similar embassy to Trajan. 

F. MDnier, Znr Kunitgescbichte des Plin ins, colleen passages from XXXIV 
9-S0 dealing with the development of working in bronie, and from XXXV 
treating of pottery and painting, which are all taken from Xenokrates. Since 
he wat himself an artist in bronte, his treicmcut is technical rather tbu 
historical, and he is guided mainly by his own artistic judgment Other 
portions of Pliny are referred to tbe learned Antigonus, who worked orel 
Xenokrates, adding material from other authorities and quoting from poeti 
and epigrams. Duria is another source traceable in several places. He a 
fond of contests of artists, the relations of master to pupil, women in art, lore- 
stories, etc. Further eiamination diacloset tome new data from Varro and • 
few statements due to Pasiteles. Remarks on imported luxuries go back n> 
Nepos, strange and wonderful storicE to the traveller Mucianut. Accovouof 
works of art located in central Greece are from Xenokrates, in the islands tad 
Asia from Mucianus, in Rome from Varro. 

C. Pascal, De Cereris atque lunonis castn <CIL. VI 357). Caiha Crnni is 
not ' fasting' (Amob. V 16 refers to consecrated bread, Dionys. 1 33 to libaliOBt 
with water), bat the chastity enjoined upon women at (he August festivsJof 
Ceres. Cmhu luiumu has a similar meaning (cf. Ov. Fast. II 557 if.), and 
was in force during the February festival of Juno Lucina, when virgins offered 
food to a snake (Prop. IV S. 7 ff.) living in a cave, probably in the gron <i 
that goddess near 5. Lucia in Selci. This rite was brought to Rome fiDo 

P. de Winterfeld, De tribus Germanici locis, defends 633 by comparing io! 
and 636, 673; reads Turn rtpit Cynvtura alU in 313 and Qxm eHam Ljn 

.y Google 


Mtrtfrie diltcta. Jnrum Ateipta ittpreli. Quia nitet unit UUam Df/ettam tffigiim 
in 370-3; in 273 connects laeva wMiplanla. 

L. MEiicii, Zur Berliner Paprrnipnblicalion. The documents beariDg on 
ciril law are classified as I. Suiti at law, II. Contracts. I. Complaints were 
made to the centurion as a police-officer or to the strategus of the iw/i^. The 
latter mere!; prepared the cues Tor the t^nvtitlia iuriMcm of the prefect of 
Egjpt, and complaints had to be lodged at least ten days beforehand. Suit* 
were also entered directly with the itiridiciu of Aleiandria and, ifallowed, 
were adjadged by him at hii eoHvmtus. Both prefect and iuridicui could 
del^ale their authority, in some casei even to a slrategua. Jury-lriat was 
unknown in Egypt. II. Contracts were recorded at the ayopavoiukrv by 
Greeks, at the ypa^lov by Egyptians. Record of the transfer of real estate 
was kept merely for the information of the tai -gatherer. Among other 
details, we learn that the renUl system pressed hard on the poor, and tenantry 
at will was in force, that antichresis was practised in Egypt at least, that the 
elder son inherited two-thirds of the properly, and that as early as 199 the 
right of lOngi timforii fciiatie was limited to ten or twenty years. Ufoirw 
means (i) arbitraloi, (3) witness at court, (3) administrator of a will (Gal. %. 19), 
(4) upititar, (5) mortgager. 

Miscelleo. — U. Wilcken has examined the MS of Ar. Rep. Ath. and gives 
ten new readings, besides some thirty notes tending to confirm the text of 
Blass. — W. Soltan shows that Appian'i account (B. Civ. I 7) of the Itx agraria 
impliei the existence of an earlier statute and that the Licinian law does not 
necessarily presnme many large tenants of the ager pttilUus, so that the latter 
Uw may be as old as 367 B. C. — U. Koehlcr publi^es two short dedicatory 
inscriptions from the Athenian acropolis, belonging to the empire. — K. Kalb- 
fleisch publishes readings from a Paris HS (Snppl. grec. 6S7) containing part 
of Aristotle's Metaphysics (freeing with Lanr. A'), fragments of Philoponui' 
commentary to the Aoalylica priora, and a portion of the twelfth homily of 

Barkbr Niwhall. 

Nnix JahrbOcber fOr PHiLOLoatB und Pabdagogik, 1893. 

I. Znm Panegyrikos dea Isokratea, pp. 1-34. G. Friedricb provea that the 
Panegyric was written end of 385 or beginning of 3B4 B. C. 

9. Za Thukydides, pp. 35-33. Hugo Ton Kleist interprets and analytes 
•ereral passages of Thnc., book II, without resort to emendation or athetesis. 

I Alexandria, pp. 34-6. Jaliopolis and Nikopolis 
mes for the same place. 

4. Review of Maass' Aratea by F. Snsemihl, pp. 37-48. 

5. Der Angriff des M. Lepidas and M. Bmtns auf das Reformwerk SuIIm, 
pp. 49-63. Lepidni, Franke asserts, began his opposition to Sulla when he 

.y Google 


entcted npon hii contnUhip, bal tecretly, and only op«n1r>fteTSal!k'tde>tb 
(Sallnst, II to ff. notwithitftodine). 

6. Ueb«r HJmi haitia, pp. 64-8. A. Nehring explaini the phrue u ligni- 
f^ing ■ sheep or olh«r animal whose twD middle milk teeth haxe been repUced 
bf larger and permaneDt teeth. Thi* occnn now in the cue of sheep beiwecD 
the age* i and i^,but maf hare happened in Roman timet at the age of 1. 
Aniidau ii idenijcal with Hdem. 

7. ZniD erslcD and iweiten Bache dei Quintiliaaui, pp. 69-78. Emenda- 
tions of bki. I and II of Quinlilian bjr Kiderlin. 

8. Zu Valeria* Maiimut, p. 78. diferrtnt lot rtftrrtHt, VIII 10. 3. ragEeited 
by Stangl. 

g. Statiana, pp. 79-So. LandittSm reads ctUbrtait tua for itbtrenl ha,Si\i. 
II ^, iO,*Tii HUt far Hltu, 111 5,93. 

Fa*cicle t. 

10. Vorhom«ri(che Kamprichildeiiinsen in der Itiat, pp. Si-94. Hennui 
Kinge demonstrate* that in the Iliad are fonnd description* of wurion 
(i) ananned with the breast-plate, (a) with antiqoe helmets lacking cheek. 
Deck and forehead pieces, and (3) wilhoot greaves. All this correspondi will) 
the repr«4entatioDS found at Mycenae, and Kluge hold* that the poet took 
these descriptions from older epics. 

11. Inschriftliche*. p. 94. Bencker discasaea C. I. G. Ill, n. 6738. 

13. Die Danaiden*ag;e, pp. 95-113. W. Schwari thinks that the otigiDoT 
the Danaidae legend was an epic dealing with ships, the number jo beiiiE 
fixed by the 'tvT^KOVTOfnt and the names drawn (a) from the geographical 
knowledge of the day, (J) from names of ihips, and (r) from A^*e conditioni. 
Name of the poem may have been Danaii and the poet waa AigiTe. Apollo- 
dorus drew his list of names from this poem, which was written lOOo-SooB.C. 
Hyginus' list is later and not Argire. 

13. Znr Odyssee, p. Ii3. Pfikel refers pa, Od. y 369. to the singer. 

M- Review of Keil's Die Solonischen Verfassung in Aristoleles Veifatc 
nng^eschichte Athens, by Fr. Cauer, pp. 113-30. 

(13.) Zur Odyssee, p. isa Interpretation of ^ 30 by Pokel. 

IS- Ueber den VerTasser dei Bache* dSr aurA'JHf /^mrauivrHn, pp. iii-]B. 
Brandt defend* himself for the a*9ertion that this work U not that of Lacltotiu 
against objections raised bf Belser and jalicher. 

16. Fragmente einer Handschrift des Hacrobini- and Plinins-eEcerpte. p^ 
139-43' Discussion of the Macrobiui and Pliny excerpU on ten parchneal 
leave* found in Cologne in 18S9. A. Bebr. 

17. Zur Schillers Uebersetzung der Aeneide,pp. 143-4. Rnbentohn poisU 
out Schiller's misunde man ding of Aen. II 174 f, 

iS. Miscelle, p. 144. Pokel reprinU a Greek poem, written by Naick in 
'8s»/3, r^arding Ellendl's Lexicon Sophocleum. 

.y Google 


Fudcle 3. 

19. TnEPEIiOT KAT A9HNOrEN0TS, pp. 145-61. Tent and crilical 
notes by B lass. 

3a Zd XenophoQs Anabasis, pp. 161-2. Note on Anab. IV 3, 10 by Ernst 

21. DcT dnalis bei Polybius, pp. 162-4. Note on Polyb. Ill 51 bjr Ernst 

BI£ OETO BIBAIA AIAIPOTHBNA, Leipiie, 1892, pp. 165-76, by Fr. Real.''. 
93. Die GrQndung Ton Tarent, pp. 177-92. The Panh en iae. according to 
Geffcken, are the original inhabitants of Laconia who were not enslaved when 
Laconia wai captured by Ihe Dorians. Daring the Messeniin wart they 
rerolted and were allowed to leave the coanlry. thus Tounding Tarentum. 
They were Achaeans, and Tarentum was Iherefore not a Doric colony. Name 
Partheniae comes perhaps from the name of the mountain which separated 
Arcadia from Argos. 

34. Zu Aristoteles Politik, p. 193. Susemihl defends his rejection of Pol. 
II S, 1167 B, 32-3S, as interpolation. 

35. Zu Flanlus, pp. 193-9. Emendation of Pers. 140, Menaech. S9, Capt. 
QI3. Trio. 8>3. by Jallos Lange, to which is added a note by Fleckeisen apon 
the monstrosity nddux in the Capt. passage. 

36. Zu Terentins Phonnio, pp. 199-300. Fleckeisen suggests oHh hiiu in 
emctm in Phorm. 36B. 

27. Ana annei, vor Jahren, pp. iot-3. C. F. W. Mueller shows that 
Petichenig't addition of fiatuai to this phrase in Amm. XXVI 10, J isgroundless. 

{ij.} Pp. 303-33. Continuation and conclusion of No. i;, pp. 131-3S. 

28. Zn Ciceros Dialog Horlensius, p. 224. Explanation of frag. Cic. 99 
(Mueller) by T. SUngl. 

Faicides 4-5. 

19. Die Zinsnrknnde su 01. BS. 3-89. S (C. I. A. 373). pp. 235-60. An 
eihanstive discussion of Boeckh's and Kubicki's interpretation of this inscrip- 
tion by G. F. Unger. 

(30.) Zn Xenopbons Aoabasis, p. 260. Boehme would read ^poupapx'ot for 
ffiobpia in Anab. 1 4, 1$. 

30. Uiteile griech. Prosaiket der class. Zeit Uber die Stellang dei griech. 
Fna, pp. 361-76. The testimony of Hdt., Xen., Plato, Aristotle and the 
orators, Th. Haltbias holds, agrees with that of the poets to the effect that 
Ihe position of woman in clastic Greek times was much more favorable than 
appean from the testimony of the law or than has been generally believed. 

31. Die Reihenfolge dei Tragoedien in Aischylos Prometheia, pp. 376-G3. 
Bosslei defends the order *vp^6poc. itc/UtrK-, Xv6iavoi, 

.y Google 


31. Zu Platona Phileboi, pp. 383-8. EmeDdatioD &nd czegeMt of fiftets 
puugei of the Philebm bj Apelc. 

33. Ktitische Bemerknngen lar Geschicblc TimolcoDi, pp. aS^^ Ch. 
CluicD concludes with thii irticle the crilic>I ducuuion of the teuimonjof 
Diodofu* and Plalarch regarding Ihe last rean of TinoleoD. 

34. Zur KosmogODie der Stoiker, pp. 19B-J00. A. Hibl«r ioteqirea Ibc 
MSS readings of Kleomedet, I t, 6 f. 

35. Jaliopolit und Nikopolii, pp. 301-4. Refntation by W. Scfawan af 
Cnuini' statement (pp. 34 ff. of this joarnal) that Juliopolii and Nicopolit 
wete identical. 

36. Die Reihenfolge der Briefe de* eriten Buchi von Horatia* and du 
Verhtltaisi zwiichen Horatini nod Maecenas vom Jahr 31 Ml, pp. 30$-*>- 
Tb. Oeiterlen dates the epistles of the first book of Horace as foUom )J 
B. C. epitit. 13, 4, 2, S, 6; 93 B.C. 19, 17, 14, 16; at B. C. 9. ?■ I0i3. 'S^ *" 
B.C. 30.11,8, iB.ia, I. 

(33.) Za Platoni Pbilebus, p. jso. Apell enends 49 A. 

37. Die Hfifen von Karthago, pp. 331-33. R. Oehler, incited br Torr'i 
topographical Biudjr of the two harbors of Carthage (Class. Rev. [S91), uDde^ 
takes a minute and detailed stud; of the same topic, showing wherein Ton'i 

38. Zu Terent. Hautontimoroumenoi, p. 33a. Fleckeisen emend* t. f]J 
bjr a change of the word-order. 

39. Zn Ovidiu) Metamorphosen, pp. 333-6. X 183 ff., XV 364 and VII 
636 emended b; O. Staoge. 

4a Zn den Handschriften des Lucanns, pp. 337-53. The Talne af M 
(Monlepessulanus) in distinction from V(Vos5ianus) is emphasized bj C. Hosiiu. 

41. Zu TacitDS Agricola, pp. 353-6. amarUUn is invested by Hacbtmitn 
for avaritiam in Agric. 9. 

43. Zu Caeaar de betlo gal I ico. pp. 357-61. J.Lange sn^ests emeodatioBt 
to five pMsages of Caesar's Gallic War, 

43. Ueber die Qnellen su den FeldiQgen Jntians gegen die Germinen, ^ 
363-8. Libanius and Ammianus found material for their history of Julian ib 1 
work treating of Julian's expedition* written either bf Julian himself or l>7 
Magnus Carrenus. The existence of such a work is a«*erled by W, KocL 

Fascicle 6. 

44. Steinhaufen als Fluchmale, HermesheiligtUmer und Grabhlgel is 
Griecbenland, pp. 369-9;. The Modern Greek custom of heaping up pile* al 
stones upon the spot where some offence against a community his been 
comtnitted, each passer-by casting a stone upon the pile, as a curse to tke 
author of the offence, is traced by B. Schmidt to prehistoric days. It gare 
way in the times of ancient Greece to the erection of stone-heap* in honor of 
Hermes ('Efi^iva), but when the old religion died out the ancient cnitom ¥it 



4S- Theognidea, pp. 395-8. Peppmneller leconitracts three el^ie* of 

46. De Amlopbanii Ariam Teiin 5S6. pp. 399-400. R. Helm propotei a 
lolation of the crux in Ave* 586. 

47. Zn PUtont Gorgias, pp. 401-3. ypifmara {Gorg. 4B4 A) P. Meyer 
interprets ms " written magicil formnl&e." 

48. Zum {rriechiichen RonaD, pp. 403-8. G. Thiele defendt his inlerpre- 
tation of Cic. de inv. I 19, 37 against the attack bj Rohde. 

49. Oppiaai CJlicU eodicnm in bibliothecii horam adtenratoram teriei, pp. 
409-16. An ennmeratioD of all the existing OppiaD HSS by R. Viri. 

50. Zn Mantlius, pp. 417-33. Th. Breiter defeodi the readings of the 
Hanilins MS at Madrid in thirty-seven passage*. 

51. Ueber iwei Briefc Ciceros an C. Trebonius, pp. 404-33. W. Stemkopf 
find* that Epist. XV at wa* tent by Cicero at the end of 708 or beginning of 
709 from bit country estate, while XV 30 dates from his retnm to Rome 
shortly after. 

(as.) Zn Plantss, p. 433. Stichus 14$ is explained by Jnlins Lange. 

Fbahk Louis Van Cleif. 

.y Google 


In ordiouy times the Editor of the AWKRICAN Jourhai. of Philolocv liu 
toiled »fler the ■ccnmuUtion of recent 'literatiire' in Tain. Few, Tetjfewof 
the books recciTcd have attaiDcd to a notice ; and the mrteitagei, great >t taj 
rate, bB*e grown very mach dnring the »ii months' absence of the Editoi. 
Trae, the Joamal hai repeatedl]' giten warning that it rect^niie* no oblip- 
tion to review every book thai ii sent in. Not oa\j i* the space allotted u 
the reriew-departmenl too small, bat even if there were space enoaeli. ■ 
periodical ihal depends wholly on unpaid contribntions ornnot always com- 
mand a kind of talent that Ends a ready market elsewhere. A list of coatnb- 
ntors prepared for another porpote reveals bnt too clearly that the stesdj 
worken for the Jooraal are very few, and the 6ssiparant mal I i plication of 
philological publications has limited more and more Ihe sonrces of suppET- 
Bat the increasing diffically of the task does not diminish the Editor'i tense 
of duly, nor cause him to bate a jot of heart or hope, and lo, after thukiiE 
publicly his friend, Dr. C. W. E. Miixu, for seeing the two ptecedici 
nnmben Ihroagb the press, he takes full charge again and begins ■ new series 
of the ■ native-wood notes' that bear the sapertcription ' Brief Mention.' 

With the appearance of Professor Jkbb's Ajax (New York, The MacmilUn 
Co.), the most considerable edition of Sophokles in English — it might besUe 
to say in any language — is complete. There remains, it is true, a volnme (kit 
is to treat of the fr^pnentl, bat the editing of fn^ments, while it brings intd 
play many of the Encst faculiics of the scholar, does not give scope to ike 
larger aesthetic jadgments for which we look to Professor JaBB. In 1869 
Professor Jub put forth a smaller edition of the -f/ox in ihe Caiau Chid- 
centm, bnt he almost disclaims any connection with that earlier prodiiclio>>< 
and emphasises the fact Ibat the present work is a new one ihronghout To 
be sure. Professor Jibb's work on the Cattna daiiieirmrn was anch u no 
scholar Deed be ashamed of, and it is not surprising that Ihe compaaiM 
volume, the Elttira, was soon reproduced in this country with a numbei vf 
schoolboy additions and unschoiarly blunders, which stirred my indignation it 
a time when I thought indignation worth white. In a foi^llen number of' 
forgotten educational journal, I published a somewhat tart review of PiDfeswi 
Jbbb's adapter, and at the same time took occasion to rub off some of (he rut 
that in my judgment bad clung to the Cattna ClaitieBmrn, In looking overoT 
ma^inal notes on the AJax made at the time, I am inlcresled to Gnd that at 
nearly every point at which I ventured to differ with Professor Jbbb, Professor 
Jkbb ho* since differed from himself, and this would give me connge to 
discuss the points thit stiti remain, if the kind of criticism in which I nsosllT 
indulge were not of the minuscule order, which is somewhat out of place ^len 
one is congratulating so eminent a scholar on the happy completion of the 
great work of his life. In this notice, at least, he shall have an dfMirntilw. 

.y Google 


It nuj have teemed to lome thtt I <fu too hanh Id my recent comment 
{XVI 597) on Mr. FORBES's reuHog Tbnk. i, 46, where he prints Htun foi 
({<*«(. k^tiai has not onljr the be«t MS narranC, bnl is found in Belcker't 
steieotjrped edition nnd also in Boehme. But to retain ffciot as a present in 
Thukjdidei, in deference to an; MS, ii a superstition and, nhich ii worse, 
expose* the editor to a fnlmination from Dr. Ruthbkfobd, who it ncTei weary 
of ihnndering about the obTious. So, months after this Journal had said what 
wu necenary about Kaiser's nonsense touching pifii Sri (XVI 395), the editor 
of Phrynichnt, in niter disregard of the old maiim attiai luagai, brings the 
whole thing up ^lin in the Claisical Reriew for February, t8g6. But, how- 
erer unjustifiable I may have been in my comment on Mr. Forbis, who has a 
right to be a* superstitious as he pleases about MSS, I can hardly go wrong in 
uying that I was nnpleatantly surprised at finding, in an excellent little 
ubool-book by that admirable scholar, Dr. Sandys, Firjt Creek EtaJer and 
WrUtr, nnder tlfa a sentence adapted from Thuk. i, 46, and running: jfrxri 
nipd XiifUpuv 1) 'Ajfpourin Ufoni tic rifr AUiirrav. Immediately afterwards we 
hiTc the normal use in iirtt, and if Thukydide* is to be followed so closely, 
why not if 86Jiaaaaii7 Assuredly in school-books, if anywhere, the norm is to 
be obierred, and we must not have elfu used as a present, not re coupling two 
words, nor ^tpl with ace. after a verb of saying, no matter how much they may 
be justified by examples from Greek at large. Ail this 'is very schoolmasterly, 
and may be considered nnsuilable for a philological journal. Not unsuitable 
for a philological journal, however, is a hearty greeting to Dr. Sakdvs's third 
edition of Part II of the SeUet Privatt Orations of Dtnunthtnii, in which he 
shows his wonted alacrity in looking up the new literature, and in which, by 
the way, he quotes Dr. Kirx's dissertation 00 DmnslktHtt SlyU in llu PrivaU 
Orotum, a treatise well worthy o( such distinction. 

In a little volume entitled Gmi Nelis, Revised, a scholar whose name will 
not be mentioned, for reasons which will appear, has put together a number 
of formulae which be has found useful in his classes. Not a few of these 
fonnulae I also had found useful when said scholar was slill in pinafores, and 
in fact had framed them myself. Representalioas were made to the note- 
taker and note-makei that tome acknowledgment was due to the source of 
some of those fonnulae. With all promptness he disclaimed any intention of 
tnrreptilions work, and declared thai he had frequently told his classes that 
such and such formulae had been learned in my school. He thought, it 
Mems.tbat the 'general acknowledgment in the preface was tnfiicient.' As 
prefaces are seldom read with care, it may be as welt to quote the acknowl- 
edgment : ' The ordinary grammars have been freely used, and it has not been 
thought necessary to indicate the sources of special matters.' As I have not 
yet attained to the dignity of an ordinary Greek grammar, I am at a loss to 
tee how the work on which I have spent much tbonghl and toil for many 
years is acknowledged at alt. But as the acknowledgment is quite as ample 
as 1 have found in more exalted quarters, 1 forbear to press the matter. 

.y Google 


Thanks are due to HeMra. Lemcke ft BnecboeT, N«« York, for miteral 


Cnrtios Rnfna (Qaintni). Selectiom from the Hiator? o( Alexiaderth 
Great ; ed. tar the a*e of schooli, with note* and vocabolary bj Wilbtd 
Humphreys. Boston, Ginii &• Ct., 1896. i9-|->o8 pp. i6mo, d., 5S^'- 

Emerson (Oliver Farrar). A Brief History of the EnglJsb Laagntie. 
New York, TTU Matmillan Ca., 1S96. 7 + 267 pp. iimo, d., net (1. 

Mahaffjf (J. P.) A Surrey of Greek CiTilitalion. Headville, Pa., FUtl 
A* ViiKiitl, 1896. 337 pp. II. llmo, cl., tl. 

Wilby (Stephen W.) How to Speak Latin : a series of Latin didofin 
with English tr. Baltimore, Md., /. Sfurpky &• Ca., 1S96. 3 + N4 pp- 
lamo, d., 75 cts. 


Benecke (E. F. M.) Antimacbus of Colopboa and the Position of 
Women in Greek Poetry. A fragment. London, 1S96. 8to, 264 pp. 6s. 

Petrie(W. U. Flinders). A History of Egypt daring the SeTeDteratb 
and Eighteenth Dynasties, London, 1896. Sto, 370 pp. 6s. 

Sewell (R.) and Dikshit (S. B. ) The Indian Calendar, with TaUet for 
the Conversion of Hindu and Mnhammadao into A. D. Dates and tice 
versa. London, 1896. ^to. £1 lis. 6d. 

Wrigbt(J.) The English Dialect Dictionary. Part L A-BalloU London, 
1S96. 4I0. £t los. 


Bousssc(H.) Tombeaux Tb^bains: Le lombeaa d'Anna. Paris, 1)9^ 
Fol. Mit 16 farb. Taf. 50 fr. 

Dnfonr (M.) La Constitntiott d'Atbioes et I'tsuvte d'Arlstole. P>n), 
1896. 8vo. sfr. 

Hamdy Bey el Reinsch (Tb.) Une o^cropole royaleii Sidon. Livr.I-IV- 
Paris, 1896. 4to. too fr. 

Jacotlet (E) Stades anr les langaes do Haut-Zambite. Prenihc 
partie : Gtammaires Soabiya et Lonyi. In-8. JLermx, 11 fr. 

de Ridder. Catalogue des bronzes Irouves sur I'Acropole d'Atbtaei- 
le partie. Paris, 1S96. Svo. Avec 130 Gg. et 8 h^liograv. hora teitc 
Lft II., 35fr. 


Abu'l-Hasan. Geschichle des Ahmed SAh Dnrrlnl. Nach det Berliact 
Handschrift hrsg. v. Usk. Mann. gr. 8. vii, 152 S. Leiden, Batki. "■ 
Drutktrii varm. E.J. Brill, m. a.50. 

.y Google 


Areita. The Sacred Booki of tbe Pariis, edited by Karl F. Geldoer. 
Fmc. Viri. jr. 4- (in ! Vendld«d, V. S. 81-139 »• Prolegomeo*, Wi S.) 
St, W, KfhlkammiT. m. i8j kpll, in 3 Bdn., m. iii. 

Beitrige, Erlanger, lur englischen Philologie n. vergleichenden Littera- 
tnigescbithle. Hrtg. v. Henn, Vainhagen. XII. Hft. gr. 8. ETlangen, 
F.Jumgc, — XII. Peri didaxeon, e. Sannnlung tod Keieplen in cngliacheT 
Sprachc aoB dem il./iz. Jahrh. Nach e. Handichrift de* bnt. Museanis 
brag. T. Max LOnreneck. iii, viii, 57 S. n. 

Bibliothek, Keiliatchriftliche. Sammluag v. asajr. d. babylon. Texten 
in Umicbrift n. UeberBCiig. Hcig. t. Eberb. Scbrader. 5. Bd. gr. S. 
B., Rtuthtr &• Riiciard.—'O'K Thontafcln v. TcII-el-Amarna t. Hngo 
WiDcklei. I. HllfCe. S. 1-171. m. 10. 

Blaydei (.Freder. H. M.) Adveraacift in co»iconim graecorum fragmenta, 
acripait et collegil B. Pars II. gr. 8. «iii, 360 S. Halle, Buekh. d. 
IVatttHAitum in Ktwtm. m. 7. 

Blocb (Tbdi.) Ucb. daa Grbya- d. Dharinaiatta der Vaikbinasa. 
(Habilitationaichiitt.) gr. 8. 46 S. L., O. Harraittaitt. m. 1.6a 

Briefe. Aiugewiblte, aaa Ciceconiachcr Zeit. Hrig. v. C Bardl. Text. 
(T. 8. *i, 13S 5. m. I Karte. L., B. G. Tiubtur. Geb., m. 1.80. 

Bran* (Ito). Dai literaiitehe PoTtriit der Griechen im 5. u. 4. Jahrg. 
*or Christ) Gebart. gr. 8. x, 594 S. B., Bttur. m. 9; geb., nt. 10.10. 

Confncii magna doctrina. Textai ainicna aatagraphice exscriptni ab 
Herai. Geiger. gr. S. ti, zo S. MDnchen, A. Buekhtlt. m. 1.50. 

Conradjr (Aag.) £, Indochinesische CantatiT-DenominaliT-Bildang d. 
ibi ZoaammeDbang m. den TonacceDten. gr. 8. xix, zoS S. L., O, Har- 

Enclidia opera omnia. Ediderant I. L. Heiberg et H. Menge. Vol. VI. 
Data cum commentatio Marinl et acboliia antiqui*. Edidit Henr. Menge. 
8. Iiii, 336 S. m. Fig. L.. B. G. Ttniner. m. 5. 

Flori (L. Anoaei) epitomae libri 11 et P. Annii Flori fragmentam de 
Vergilio otstore an poeta. Edidit Otlo Kossbach. 8. Iriii. 173 S. L., 

B. G. Trubnir. m. j.So. 

GaaiDer (Joa.) M. T. Ciceroni* Hberaram de natnra dcornm argomentnm 
cxplicaTit. Progr. gr. 8. 16 S, Salzburg, H. Dieter, m. —60. 

Grnndriai der indo-ariacben Pbilologie n. A1 1 ertum aliunde, hrif. *■ Geo. 
BDbler. I. Bd. 6. d. 11. Hft. n. HI. Bd. 4. u. S. Hft. gr. 8. Straasburg, 
jr. /. Tmiiur Vtrl.—l 6. Vedische u. Sanskrit-Syntax ». J. Speyer. 96 S. 
Snbskr.-Pt., ta. 4; Einzelpr., m. 5.— 11. Indische Palaeographie tod ca. 
350 ■ Cbr.-CK. 1300 p. Cht. V. G. BQhlei. 96 n. It S. n. 17 Taf. in Mappe. 
Sabakt.-Pr., m. 15; Eintelpr., m. 1S.50.— III4. Siipkhy* u. Yoga t. Rich. 
Garbe. 54 S. Sabskr.-Fr..m. 1.50; Eintelpr., m. 3.— 8. Man a al of Indian 
Bnddhiam. By H. Kern. 138 S. Sabskr.-Pr., tn. j.50; Einielpr., m. 7. 

Handboch der IclaasischeD Altertums-Wisientcbaft in sysiematiacber 
DarslellDng m. besond. RQcksicbt auf Geschicble a. Methodik der einzelDen 
Disiiplinen. Hng. too Iwan t. MQIIer. 3. Bd. 5. Abtlg. gr. 8. MOnchen, 

C. H. Bed.— lit 5. GrUDdiJ** der rOmischea Gescbichte nebst Qnellen- 
konde v, Beoed. Niese. 1. Aofl. tiii, 265 S. m. 5^ geb., m. G.50. 

.y Google 


Hesiodo*. Id* DeaUche flbertr. n. m. EiDlei^^a. n. Amnerkgn. nncken 
T. Rnd. PeppmUler. p. 8. si, 196 S. m. i Tat Halle, fMM.d: Wuiw 
kautu, m. 6. 

Hid^ (Carol. L) De caanom aTDtazi Lucretiaaa. I. gr.S. it, !» S. 
Hel*iae(oraiae. B.. M^tr »• MMtr. m. 1. 

Momer'B Gedichtc 3. TL: Hilfsbach. Beaib. t. Oak. Henke. i. Bd.: 
Hetrik. Gramnxik. ZarOdyaaee: Vorgeschichte, GleichDiaae, Scdicdick 
Altertamec: Gcogniphie; Kosmograpkie ; Staat; Pamilienleben, Secwem, 
gr. 8. Ill, »3* S. in. Abblldgn. o. i Plan. L.. B. G. Tmbntr. Geb, m. *. 

Horatios Flaccu (Q.) Gedlcble. Hr«g. v. Gait Scbimmdpfeng. Ten. 
Mil t Kane, i Plane u. Namen-VerteicliDia. gr. 8. iii, 315 S. m. Bildnii. 
L., B. G. Tcuinir. Geb., m. i. 

Jabalahae III, catholici negtorUnit Tiia, ex Slirae MounUni libro, qii 
tnicribitnr ' Turrit,' deaampta. Edidil, apparatn criiico inatnuit, in latinoB 
aermonem vertit, adnotationibna illaatraviE R. Hilgeofeld. gr. S. 36 S. 
L., O. HarraistimiU. m. a. 

Miicellaaea Tironiana. Ana dem Codei Valicanat Latloaa Regime 
ChriiiiDae S46 (Fol. 99-114) brag, t, Wilb, Schmitz. Mil 3: TaL in Uchtdr. 
gr. 4. T, 79 S. U, B. G. Teubmr. In Leiaw.-Mippe, in. zo. 

Mohammad Bey. ComMie, Uanasctibiert a. aus dem Arab. Qbeia.T. H. 
Sobernheim. gr. 8. lij S. B., S. Calvary &• Cr. m. 3. 

Pindari cannina.pralegomenia el commenliriit inattucia, edidit W. CkiiiiL 
gr.S. cuTii. 466 S. m. 3 Tab. U, B. G. Ttnbntr. n. 14. 

Plant! comoediie. Kecenanit et emendavil Frdr. Leo. Vol. tl. Uiles. 
Moslellaria. Persa. Poenulus. Psendolni. Ruden*. Sticbn*. TriDum- 
mua. Trucalentns. Vidularia. Fragmenta. gr. 8. iT, 574 S. B., VW- 

KadIofi(W.) Die Spracben dec nSrdlichen taikiichen Slanune. i.Abth. 
ProbcD der Volkalitteratur. Gesammelt d. Qberi. VII. ThL Die Uaad- 
aiten der Krym. gr. 8. xtlii, 408 u. 517 S. St. Petertbarg. L., FW 
Sorl. in Kamm. m. 18.75. 

Kilievt, i, delle uroe eirusche. Vol. II., pane II. Pnblicata al nome dell' 
impertale istitulo archeologico germanlco da Gust. KOrte. gr. 4. S. 14I' 
z66 m. Taf. 57-109. Koma. B., G. Btimtr. m. 40. 

Ritter (Const.) Plato s Geselte. Datstellung dea Inballs. 8. ii,i6iS. 
L., B. G. Teubntr. va. 3.10. 

daiselbe. Kommentar aum griech. Test. 8. ix, 415 S. Ebd- 

SallustiusCTispui (C.) Bellum Catilinae, brag. v. Cail Slegmann. Er 
Ituteiungen. gr. 8. i<, 48 S. \^., B. G. Tntbner. m. — te. 

Catilinaritcbe VerschwOrung. Texlanag. f. den Scbnlgebraocb 1. 

Th. Opiti. 8. vi, 56 S. Ebd. m. —55. 

Schick -Scbackenburg (H.) Aegj'plologiache Studien. 4- HfL Indei 
zu deo Pyramidentexten. 1. Lfg. gr, 4. S. 15-136 in Anlogr. L.,/- C. 
tlitirichi' Verl. m. S. 

Schmidt (Ricb.) Der Textns' Ornatior der gakaaaptati. Ein BeitrH 
zur MSrcheokunde. gr. 8. vi, 71 S. St., W. Kohlkammir, m. 4. 

.y Google 


Schnltie (Otio). Diiqniaitionea EarlpidoM ad receniianem poilerioris 
OTdiaiafabolarnit) petlioentea. Dlas. gr. 8. iv.JiS. B., Maytr &• Malltr, 

Scbwirz (Paal> Iran im Hittelalttr oach den arabischen Geogtaphcn. 
I. (Habilitatiooaachrifi.) gr. 8. vi, 42 S. L., O. HarratimuiH. m. a. 

Snetonii Tranqailli (C.) «ita divi Clmdii. Commcmario initinxit H. 
Smilda. Diss. gr. 8. vji, 191 5. GToningen, /. B. WtUtrs. m. 4,30. 

TcTcnti (P.) Adelphoe. Recenaait Hicb. Gitlbaaer. Cum apcclmiDe 
editionii qaadri color is, gr. 8. xi*, 31 S. Wien, VtrL-Btiehh. ^Auitria^ 
F. Dtll. m. 

Virgil's Aneide (in ADSwahl). hrsg. t. Mart. Fickelscherer. Hilfibeft a. 
KommeoUT. gr. 8. It, 39 d. vi, I3i S. m. 9 Abbildgn. L., B. C. Teuiaer, 
In I Bd. geb., ni. 1 ; Hilfsfaeft allein, id. —60; Kommentar allein, m. 1.60. 

Wachller (loa.) De Alcmaeone Croloniala. gr. S. 104 S. L., B. G. 
Teuiner. m. 3.10. 

Xenophon's Anabasis. Teitaoag. f, den Schulgebraach v. W. Gemoll. 
8. zxxir, 397 S. m. 1 Taf. n. 1 Karte. L., B. G. TtiibittT. Kart., m. t.6o. 

Memorabilien. TexCausg. 1. den Scbnlgebraucb v. W. Gilbeil. 8. 

XT, 181 S. m. Bildnis. Ebd. Kail., m. 1.10. 


Arrighi (C.) (C. Kighel(i). Dizionario Milanese-ltaliano, premialo nel 
coDcorso gOTCTnaliTD del ■89&-93. Ila edizione. Mitino, 1B96. i6do, xi 
•4-900 pp. a due col. L. 

Ginasani (G.) La qaeatione del